Presented to the
LIBRARY of the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
by
Ontario
Legislative Library
COPY OF MECKLENBURG DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, SIGNED MAY 20, 1115.
^^Vx,/^? /'- - ^ _ f';{. //'ff
/$Jl& / ^ 1 t** i ' , i ! ' ^ "*'*'% '^^^ '"< / ^
,
' .
*:, ; u':::v
/;/,., c .-, ,. ,,,<^^ /^.^^-.^ ^ ^XA^
/VI^J^A*- /K-Tau-^-^* /t^.*< >,,-,:_</ i - '<"S, G*+J*-*^~*^ ***
^. rt_^^ ' -v^-V*. xi '>=1
'
^
A SOl^VICXIR
OF THE 117TH ANNIVERSARY, CELEBRATED AT CHARLOTTE, N. C., MAY IX, 19, 20, 1892.
A fraudulent facsimile lithograph of the alleged original Declaration.
gr f,v&^--.-- ^
* >w|^J ^
"-".- l; w
*%i 4i
A Study of Evidence Showing that the Alleged Early
Declaration of Independence by Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, on May 2Oth,
1775, is Spurious
BY
William Henry Hoyt, A. M,
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK AND LONDON
Gbe 'Knickerbocker press
1907
COPYRIGHT, 1907
BY
WILLIAM KENRY HOYT
PREFACE
SINCE it was first brought to the attention of the
general public in the year 1819, the declaration of
independence which is alleged to have been issued
on May 20, 1775, by a convention held in Charlotte*
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has been the
subject of the most mooted question and acrimo-
nious controversy of the history of the Ameri-
can Revolution. Evidences dating from 1775 and
onward of a document of this nature, copies of
doubtful origin of the document in question, a copy
written from memory in 1800, testimony of reliable
persons who stated between 1819 and 1830 that they
had been spectators and participants at a meeting
which adopted it, and traditions are cited to prove
the genuineness and authenticity of the Mecklen-
burg Declaration of Independence. In 1830, after
the publication of the trenchant letter of Thomas
Jefferson expressing his belief that the paper was a
fabrication, the Legislature of North Carolina took
up the matter, and affirmed the Mecklenburg Dec-
laration to be genuine and authentic. To-day, in
North Carolina, it is engrafted upon the statute
books, the date it bears is emblazoned upon the
great seal of the State, and the anniversary of its
iii
iv Preface
alleged promulgation is observed by legislative en-
actment. The consensus of opinion of critical
students of American history is opposed to its
authenticity ; but from the beginning of the con-
troversy there have been two hostile camps, each
fortified by what are regarded as unanswerable
arguments. If this verdict be reversed, we must
conclude, contrary to long-accepted views, and with
the older British historians, that before May, 1775,
there was a conscious movement in the colonies hav-
ing independence as its aim, and we must admit
that some of the most striking expressions of Jef-
ferson's immortal document of thirteen months
later were borrowed from the Mecklenburg mani-
festo. Herein lies the chief historical importance
of the question.
Because of the absence of new evidence of im-
portance there has been comparatively little discus-
sion of the perplexing problem since the centennial
celebration of the Mecklenburg Declaration at
Charlotte in 1 875. Renewed interest was awakened
by the publication in July, 1905, of a facsimile of
the disputed document as it appeared in what pur-
ported to be a long-lost copy of the Cape-Fear
Mercury, a colonial newspaper in which it is said to
have been printed. The paper was soon shown to be
a forgery by the advocates as well as by the oppo-
nents of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declar-
ation. Interest has been accentuated and general
acceptance of the declaration rendered seemingly
imminent by Dr. George W. Graham's elaborate
presentation of the arguments for its authenticity
Preface v
and by new light of much significance which late
researches by those who uphold the claims of Meck-
lenburg have brought to bear upon the subject.
The purpose of this monograph is to show that
all the evidence, new and old, which is cited in sup-
port of the genuineness and authenticity of the
Mecklenburg Declaration, should be understood as
relating to a series of resolves of similar import,
which were adopted in Mecklenburg County May
31, 17/5, and that the several versions of the sup-
posititious paper of May 20, 1775, trace their origin
to rough notes written from memory in 1800 by
John McKnitt Alexander, who believed those re-
solves to be a declaration of independence and at-
tempted to set forth their substance. In preparing
the work I have gone to original sources of infor-
mation wherever it has been possible. Hitherto
inaccessible manuscripts are adduced to demon-
strate the origin of the famous resolutions of
May 20, 1775, and the successive stages of their
construction.
Unfortunately for the cause of historic truth, the
enthusiasm of local pride and patriotism in North
Carolina, where the Mecklenburg Declaration,
vouched for, as it is, by the personal testimony of
North Carolina patriots of the Revolution, has been
regarded with peculiar veneration for close upon a
hundred years ; the charges of plagiarism against
Thomas Jefferson and of forgery against John Mc-
Knitt Alexander ; the disappearance of the Cape-
Fear Mercury from the British State Paper Office
in 1837 under circumstances which would seem
vi Preface
to indicate that Jefferson's defenders destroyed
evidence of the Mecklenburg Declaration ; and,
finally, the fact that the reputed signers of this
declaration were all, or nearly all, members of
one religious denomination, have each added fuel
to the fires of controversy and contributed to pro-
duce an intolerant spirit which has been a bane
to sober discussion. As it was in 1853 and in 1873,
when Charles Phillips and Daniel R. Goodloe were
the first North Carolinians since an unknown gladia-
tor of 1830 who ventured to dispute the authenticity
of the paper of May 20, 1775, it is inevitable to-day
that a publication which discredits the proudest
page in the history of North Carolina should en-
gender in some quarters an unkindly feeling for its
author. In discharging my ungrateful office, I
write simply as a student of history, inspired with a
special love for the history of the " Old North
State," and with a profound veneration for the
Mecklenburg patriots of 1775. I came to my sub-
ject before Dr. George W. Graham's book was an-
nounced with the intention of writing a defence of
the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration,
but the irresistible logic of facts drove me to my
present position.
For the first incentive to undertake this work and
for advice and encouragement during its prepara-
tion, I am under an obligation to Prof. Samuel F.
Emerson, of the University of Vermont, which it is
a pleasure to acknowledge here. Some of the ma-
terials which I have used were unearthed by Mr. A.
S. Salley, Jr., Secretary of the Historical Commission
Preface vii
of South Carolina, and published during the past
year in a series of articles contributed by him to the
Charleston News and Courier. For courtesies ex-
tended to me while collecting materials my ac-
knowledgments are due to Messrs. B. F. Stevens
and Brown, of London, the Earl of Dartmouth, Dr.
William C. Lane, Librarian of Harvard University,
Dr. Kemp P. Battle, of the University of North
Carolina, Dr. Reuben G. Thwaites, of the State His-
torical Society of Wisconsin, Dr. Stephen B. Weeks,
of San Carlos, Arizona, Mr. Edward P. Moses, of
Raleigh, N. C., Mr. Waldo G. Leland, of the Car-
negie Institution, Mr. Victor H. Paltsitts, of the
New York Public Library, and Mrs. C. S. Coles,
of Washington, D. C. I have also to thank Mr.
Salley for reading the proofs of the book and for
many valuable suggestions.
W. H. H.
BURLINGTON, VT.,
September 2, 1906.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PACK
HISTORY OP THE CONTROVERSY.
Causes that led to the exhuming of the Mecklenburg
Declaration (1817-19). Jefferson and Adams believe it
to be spurious (1819). The incredulous are silenced by
surviving witnesses. Jefferson's opinion becomes known
(1829) and the Legislature of North Carolina publishes
testimony (1830-31). Contemporaneous evidence of
such a document discovered (1833). Jefferson openly
accused of plagiarism (1837). May 3ist resolves found
(1838) after all survivors had passed away and said to
be the ones they remembered. Dr. Hawks testifies
(1852) that the Martin copy was obtained before 1800.
It is learned (1853) that the Davie copy was written
from memory in 1800. The fact long ignored. Dr.
Graham argues (1895, 1905) that the May 3ist resolves
were never adopted 1-21
CHAPTER II
THE TRUE "DECLARATION."
Genuineness and authenticity of the May 3ist resolves
proved by their publication in Charleston and New-Bern
newspapers. In effect, a declaration of independence,
and might have been remembered as such . . .22-31
CHAPTER III
THE RIVAL DECLARATIONS COMPARED.
Both papers,if authentic, were adopted by the Committee
of the County of Mecklenburg. The May 3ist resolves
ignored, annulled, and effected in a milder way all that
Contents
PAGE
is alleged to have been done and unanimously approved
eleven days earlier. Survivors remembered only one
such document, which was not suppressed or superseded. 32-40
CHAPTER IV
Gov. Martin's statements, the only records of 1775 that
support the Declaration. Though well informed his
proclamation of June 16, 1775, shows no knowledge of
it. Ignorance of Whig leaders on June aist and their
loyalty revealed by the Wilmington "Association*!
and reply to his proclamation. On June 3oth he dis-
patched to England a newspaper containing Mecklen-
burg resolutions and the reply to his proclamation.
Fallacious arguments to prove that Jefferson's defenders
stole it in 1837. The May 3ist resolves sent in the dupli-
cate dispatch instead of the newspaper. Which was
the Cape-Fear Mercury of June 23, 1775. The resolves
positively identified and the Governor's ignorance of
others ascertained by his subsequent statements. Tories
of Mecklenburg protest against the May 3ist resolves
alone. Gov. Wright, Cogdell, and Johnston each leave
records of the May 31 st resolves alone .... 41-62
CHAPTER V
CAPTAIN JACK'S MISSION TO PHILADELPHIA.
Conflicting testimony of the witnesses and Gov. Martin
as to which resolves were sent to Philadelphia. Gov.
Martin sustained by the Salisbury records. Inconsist-
ency of the answers of the Continental Congress and
North Carolina delegates, if made to the Declaration,
with their professions of allegiance. Impossibility of its
concealment by the delegates, and Adams's and Jeffer-
son's testimony. True story of Capt. Jack's mission
disclosed by the important relation of the May 3ist re-
solves to the political situation in the colonies. And by
their suppression in Philadelphia 6382
CHAPTER VI
THE SALISBURY RECORDS.
The Declaration not known in Salisbury eleven days
Contents
PAGE
after its alleged promulgation. Other circumstances
that can be explained only by connecting its story with
the May 31 st resolves 83-87
CHAPTER VII
Subsequent conduct of reputed "signers": Kennon
practises in the King's courts; Avery appointed Attor-
ney for the Crown; Abraham, Hezekiah, and Adam
Alexander, Irwin, Barry and Foard administer justice
for Mecklenburg in the King's name; Polk, John Mc-
Knitt Alexander, Phifer, Avery, and Kennon formally
acknowledge allegiance in the Hillsboro Congress; every
"true friend to liberty" does so in Mecklenburg. Argu-
ments answered : reconciliation the aim of the Hillsboro
Congress ; membership in it not improper for the authors
of the May 3 1 st resolves ; Whigs and Tories deny that the
idea of independence took root in North Carolina before
1776. Summary of facts established by contempo-
raneous records ........ 88103
CHAPTER VIII
ORIGIN OF THE MYTH.
Independent spirit of the May 3ist resolves. Called a
declaration of independence by many writers. Like
measures looked upon before July 4, 1776, as equivalent
to independence. How their provisional character was
forgotten. Early evidence of the myth: "A Modern
Poem" (1777) the Swain copy probably fraudulent;
the Moravian record (1783); Charlotte deeds which date
independence from 1775 uncertainty of their signifi-
cance. Date of May 20, 1775, not part of the myth be-
fore 1800 104-124
CHAPTER IX
THE DAVIE COPY.
Bancroft obtained reproductions of two papers certified
by " J. McKnitt" to be those from which he copied in
1819. Their internal evidence shows that Alexander's
notes were written from memory in 1800 or soon after-
wards, and were the rudiments of the second paper.
xii Contents
"J. McKnitt" certified the latter to be the same as the
Davie copy, and Alexander certified the Davie copy to
have been written from memory in 1800. Comparison
of his notes with the May jist resolves proves that he
tried to write their substance. The Davie prototype
partly, if not wholly, the work of the unknown writer.
Answers to Prof. Phillips's charges of fraud against " J.
McKnitt." Alexander told his story to many persons
after 1800, and the date which he recollected thus be-
came known 125173
CHAPTER X
THE MARTIN AND GARDEN COPIES.
Martin a voluminous writer, an unreliable historian, and
in his dotage when he told Dr. Hawks that he obtained
his copy prior to 1800. Internal evidence of his book
shows that the resolutions and accompanying narrative
were inserted after its completion. Col. Polk wrote for
Judge Murphey in 1819 a narrative containing reso-
lutions procured from "J. McKnitt.'' Its publication
by Murphey in amended form proved by the MS. and
his correspondence. Its republication by Martin
proved by comparing his narrative and resolutions with
Folk's. The fact confirmed by the Garden, Murphey,
and "Guilford" narratives. And by allusions to Mur-
phey in Martin's preface 174-201
CHAPTER XI
THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES.
Probable cause of the suppression of the certificate to the
Davie paper. Difficulties and prepossessions under
which the witnesses testified. Yet the majority remem-
bered terms peculiar to the May 3ist resolves. Their
testimony to the date of May 20, 1775, of no value.
They contradict Alexander's recollection as to who sum-
moned the meeting and who acted as secretary. Un-
warrantable alteration of the Alexander MSS. caused
thereby. Story of the signing of the Declaration prob-
ably unfounded 202-221
Contents xiii
APPENDIX
PAGE
A. COLONEL POLK'S TRANSCRIPT OF THE DOCUMENT PRE-
PARED BY "J. McKNITT" FROM HIS FATHER'S PAPERS
AND PUBLISHED WITH EMENDATIONS IN THE Raleigh
Register, APRIL 30, 1819 225-229
B. THE STATE PAMPHLET 230-270
C. THE MECKLENBURG RESOLVES AS PRINTED IN THE North-
Carolina Gazette OF JUNE 16, 1775, NO. 323 . . 271-275
D. TRANSCRIPT OF THE MECKLENBURG RESOLVES IN THE
Cape-Fear Mercury OF JUNE 23, 1775, SENT IN GOVER-
NOR MARTIN'S DUPLICATE LETTER OF JUNE 30, 1775 276280
E. COLONEL WILLIAM POLK'S ACCOUNT OF FIRST REVOLU-
TIONARY MOVEMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA . . 281-284
ILLUSTRATIONS
A fraudulent facsimile lithograph of the alleged original
declaration ........ Frontispiece
(Kindly lent by Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr.)
The spurious Cape-Fear Mercury, Friday, June 3rd,
1775 facing 53
(By permission of the Macmillan Co.)
Bancroft's copy of the " torn half sheet " in John McKnitt
Alexander's handwriting from which the Mecklenburg
Declaration was constructed (6 plates) facing 1 26, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131
The Bancroft copyist's description of the " sheet" in an
" unknown handwriting " from which the publication
of 1819 was copied (3 plates) .... facing 132, 133, 134
Copy of the certificate attached by Dr. Joseph McKnitt
Alexander to the anonymous manuscript and his
father's (2 plates) facing 135, 136
xv
The Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence
CHAPTER I
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY
THE publication of William Wirt's Life of Pat-
rick Henry in 1817, in which Wirt claimed that
Patrick Henry " gave the first impulse to the ball
of the Revolution," was followed by a discussion
as to whether the earliest movements that led to
American independence took place in Virginia or
in Massachusetts. During the winter of 1818-19,
when the subject was a topic of conversation
at Washington among members of Congress, the
assertion was there made that the people of
Mecklenburg county, in North Carolina, formally
declared themselves independent of Great Britain
before the 4th of July, 1776.* The statement was
1 C. Tait to Gen. P. Jack, January 25, 1819, in The Address of the Hon.
Wm. A. Graham on the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, delivered
at Charlotte, February 4, 1875 (cited hereafter as Gov. Graham's Address),
113-114 ; and correspondence of John Adams ( Works, x.) and of Thomas
Jefferson (Writings, Ford ed., x.) during the year 1818.
i
2 The Mecklenburg Declaration
apparently received with incredulity. For satis-
factory information relative to the matter two of
the North Carolina members, Senator Nathaniel
Macon and William Davidson, the representative
from the Mecklenburg district, wrote to persons
in that section of the country. Davidson, who had
probably brought forward the claim for Mecklen-
burg, applied to Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander,
and received from him a full account of the dis-
puted event, which he said he had copied from
papers left by his father, John McKnitt Alexander.
Macon directed his inquiry to General Joseph
Graham, who forwarded the letter to Dr. Alexan-
der's brother, William B. Alexander, with a request
that he furnish Macon with all information that his
father's papers could supply. William B. Alexan-
der wrote Macon on February 7, 1819, that his
brother had furnished William Davidson with all
that could be found. " Nearly all of my father's
papers," he said, "were burned in the spring of
1800, which destroyed the papers now wanted, as
I believe he acted as secretary to the committee
that declared independence for this county in
1775."
Macon endeavored to procure information to
verify statements in the document received by
Davidson, which had been placed in his hands
a month or more before William B. Alexander's
letter reached him, but was unsuccessful. He
appears not to have doubted its trustworthiness,
however, and he sent it with an old proclamation
that William B. Alexander had found among his
History of the Controversy 3
father's papers to the editor of the Raleigh Register
and North Carolina Gazette, published in Raleigh,
North Carolina. 1 It appears in the issue of
Friday, April 30, 1819 (Vol. xx., No. 1023), as
follows : 3
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
It is not probably known to many of our readers, that the
citizens of Mecklenburg County, in this State made a Declara-
tion of Independence more than a year before Congress made
theirs. The following Document on the subject has lately
come to the hands of the Editor from unquestionable author-
ity, and is published that it may go down to posterity.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Mecklenburg County,
May 20,
In the spring of 1775, the leading characters of Mecklen-
burg county, stimulated by that enthusiastic patriotism which
elevates the mind above considerations of individual aggran-
disement, and scorning to shelter themselves from the impend-
ing storm by submission to lawless power, &c. &c. held several
detached meetings, in each of which the individual sentiments
were " that the cause of Boston was the cause of all ; that
their destinies were indissolubly connected with those of
their Eastern fellow-citizens and that they must either
submit to all the impositions which an unprincipled, and to
them an unrepresented parliament might impose or support
their brethren who were doomed to sustain the first shock
1 Raleigh Register editorial, August 6, 1819 (reprinted in Niles : Prin-
ciples and Acts of the Revolution, 135-136) ; and C. Tait to P. Jack,
in Gov. Grahants Address^ 113-114.
8 From the file in the Library of Congress. A proclamation of Gov.
Martin of North Carolina, dated Charlotte-Town, October 3, 1780, was
printed in the same issue, " as a curiosity." A copy of the original MS.,
sent by Dr. J. McKnitt Alexander to Wm. Davidson, made by Col. Wm.
Polk in 1819, and now in the New York Public Library, will be found in
the Appendix.
4 The Mecklenburg Declaration
of that power, which, if successful there, would ultimately
overwhelm all in the common calamity. Conformably to
these principles, Col. Adam Alexander, through solicitation,
issued an order to each Captain's Company in the county of
Mecklenburg, (then comprising the present county of Cabar-
rus) directing each militia company to elect two persons, and
delegate to them ample power to devise ways and means
to aid and assist their suffering brethren in Boston, and
also generally to adopt measures to extricate themselves from
the impending storm, & to secure unimpaired their inalienable
rights, privileges and liberties from the dominant grasp of
British imposition and tyranny.
In conforming to said Order, on the ipth of May, 1775, the
said delegation met in Charlotte, vested with unlimited
powers ; at which time official news, by express, arrived of the
Battle of Lexington on that day of the preceding month.
Every delegate felt the value & importance of the prize, &
the awful & solemn crisis which had arrived every bosom
swelled with indignation at the malice, inveteracy and insati-
able revenge developed in the late attack at Lexington. The
universal sentiment was : let us not natter ourselves that pop-
ular harangues or resolves ; that popular vapor will avert the
storm, or vanquish our common enemy let us deliberate let
us calculate the issue the probable result ; and then let us
act with energy as brethren leagued to preserve our property
our lives, and what is still more endearing, the liberties of
America. Abraham Alexander was then elected Chairman,
and John M'Knitt Alexander , Clerk. After a free and full
discussion of the various objects for which the delegation had
been convened, it was unanimously Ordained
1. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted,
or in any way, form or manner countenanced the unchartered
and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great-
Britain, is an enemy to this Country, to America, and to the
inherant and inalienable rights of man.
2. Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg County,
do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected
us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from
History of the Controversy 5
all allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all political
connection, contract or association with that Nation, who
have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties and in-
humanly shed the innocent blood of American patriots at
Lexington.
3. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and
independent People, are and of right ought to be, a sovereign
and self-governing Association, under the control of no power
other than that of our God and the General Government of
the Congress ; to the maintenance of which independence, we
solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation, our
lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.
4. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence and
control of no law or legal officer, civil or military, within this
County, We do hereby ordain and adopt, as a rule of life, all,
each and every of our former laws, wherein, nevertheless, the
Crown of Great-Britain never can be considered as holding
rights, privileges, immunities or authority therein.
5. Resolved, That it is also further decreed, that all, each
and every military officer in this county is hereby reinstated to
his former command and authority, he acting conformably to
these regulations. And that every member present of this
delegation shall henceforth be a civil officer, viz : a Justice of
the Peace, in the character of a "Committee man," to issue
process, hear and determine all matters of controversy, accord-
ing to said adopted laws, and to preserve peace, and union,
and harmony in said County, and to use every exertion to
spread the love of country and fire of freedom throughout
America, until a more general and organized government be
established in this province.
A number of bye-laws were also added, merely to protect
the association from confusion and to regulate their general
conduct as citizens. After sitting in the Courthouse all night,
neither sleepy, hungry, or fatigued, and after discussing every
paragraph, they were all passed, sanctioned and declared
unanimously, about 2 o'clock, A. M. May 20. In a few days
a deputation of said delegation convened, when Capt. James
Jack of Charlotte was deputed as express to the Congress at
6 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Philadelphia, with, a copy of said Resolves and Proceedings,
together with a letter addressed to our three Representatives
there, viz : Richard Caswell, Wm. Hooper and Joseph Hughes
under express injunction, personally, and through the state
representation, to use all possible means to have said proceed-
ings sanctioned and approved by the General Congress. On
the return of Capt. Jack, the delegation learned that their
proceedings were individually approved by the members of
Congress, but that it was deemed premature to lay them before
the House. A joint letter from said three members of Con-
gress was also received, complimentary of the zeal in the
common cause, and recommending perseverance, order and
energy.
The subsequent harmony, unanimity and exertion in the
cause of liberty and independence, evidently resulting from
these regulations, and the continued exertion of said delega-
tion, apparently tranquilised this section of the State, and met
with the concurrence and high approbation of the Council of
Safety, who held their sessions at Newbern and Wilmington
alternately, and who confirmed the nomination and acts of
the delegation in their official capacity.
From this delegation originated the Court of Enquiry of this
County, who constituted and held their first session in Char-
lotte they then held their meetings regularly at Charlotte, at
Col. James Harris's and at Col. Phifer's alternately one week
at each place. It was a civil Court founded on military
process. Before this judicature all suspicious persons were
made to appear, who were formally tried and banished,
or continued under guard. Its jurisdiction was as un-
limited as toryism, and its decrees as final as the con-
fidence and patriotism of the County. Several were arrested
and brought before them from Lincoln, Rowan and the adjacent
counties
[The foregoing is a true copy of the papers on the above
subject, left in my hands by John M'Knitt Alexander, dec'd ;
I find it mentioned on file that the original book was burned
April, 1800. That a copy of the proceedings was sent to
Hugh Williamson in New York, then writing a History of
History of the Controversy 7
North-Carolina, and that a copy was sent to Gen. W. R.
Davie. J. M'KNITT.] 1
This article was extensively copied by the news-
papers of the country, 2 and came to the notice of
the venerable John Adams in the Essex Register
of June 5, 1819, published in Salem, Massachusetts.
Adams sent a copy of the newspaper to Thomas
Jefferson as containing " one of the greatest curi-
ositys and one of the deepest Mysterys " that ever
occurred to him. 3 He wrote thus of it :
How is it possible that this paper should have been con-
cealed from me to this day ? had it been communicated to
me in the time of it, I know, if you do not know, that it would
have been printed in every Whig newspaper upon this Con-
tinent, you know if I had possessed it, I would have made
the Hall of Congress Echo and re-echo with it fifteen mongths
before your Declaration of Independence. What a poor,
ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, Crapulous Mass is Tom
Pain's Common Sense, in comparison with this paper, had
I known it, I would have commented upon it from the day you
entered Congress till the fourth of July, 1776. The genuine
sense of America at that moment was never so well expressed
before, nor since.
Adams evidently dictated this letter current e
calamo. A little reflection would have told him that
the " genuine sense of America at that moment "
1 Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander usually omitted his surname in his
signature because of the commonness of the name Alexander in Mecklen-
burg, and was frequently spoken of and addressed as " J. McKnitt."
Gov. Graham's Address, 29-30. The writer has seen several of his private
letters, all bearing this signature.
8 Raleigh Register, August 6, 1819.
* June 22, 1819. From the original letter, written by an amanuensis and
signed by Adams, in the Jefferson MSS. in the Library of Congress. It is
printed in the Works of Adams, x., 380-381.
8 The Mecklenburg Declaration
was opposed to independence. Even he and Jeffer-
son still desired reconciliation with Great Britain
in May, 1775, and few men then dared to openly
advocate independence. Mindful of their former
bitter political rivalry, which had given way, in the
evening of life, to the friendship of earlier days,
he probably wrote with some satisfaction in
the thought that his successful rival would wince
under his lavish praises of the new-found de-
claration of independence and the implied charge
of plagiarism which they conveyed ; for Adams
was convinced that either the Mecklenburg De-
claration or Jefferson's Declaration borrowed one
from the other. Before he received Jefferson's
reply, Adams wrote one of his correspondents : 1
I was struck with so much astonishment on reading this
document that I could not help inclosing it immediately to
Mr. Jefferson, who must have seen it, in the time of it, for he
has copied the spirit, the sense, and the expressions of it
verbatim into his Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776. . . .
That paper must be more universally made known to the
present and future generation.
Unlike Adams, Jefferson was not ready to accept
the paper of Mecklenburg. He was doubtless as
much annoyed as Adams anticipated. " And you
seem to think it genuine," he wrote Adams. 2 " I
believe it spurious. I deem it to be a very unjus-
tifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely
related to us as having broken out in North Carolina,
1 Adams to William Bentley, July, 15, 1819, Works , x., 381.
9 Jefferson to Adams, July 9,1819, Writings (Ford ed.), x., 136-139.
This letter forms a part of the "State Pamphlet ", reprinted in the Appendix.
History of the Controversy 9
some half a dozen years ago, ..." It is not
remarkable that his inability to find any notice
of the publication of the resolutions by the Raleigh
Register, after a lapse of two months, in Thomas
Ritchie's newspaper at Richmond and in the Na-
tional Intelligencer of Washington, the leading
journal of the country and edited by a son of the
editor of the Raleigh Register, should have led
Jefferson to express his doubt whether they were
really copied from that paper by the Essex Register \
and to deem them to be one of the hoaxes frequently
published in the newspapers of the day the work,
perhaps, of the " Essex Junto" class of statesmen,
ever ready to traduce his reputation. But the
tone of Adams's letter seems to have so disturbed
his equanimity that in attempting to point out the
marks of spuriousness he mistook the name of
Richard Caswell, who had been dead many years,
for that of William R. Davie, then living, as the
person mentioned in the certificate accompanying
the resolutions to whom John McKnitt Alexander
had given a copy of them ; and, confounding the
" delegation " of Mecklenburg county, to whose
continued "exertion in the cause of liberty and
independence " the paper referred, with the North
Carolina delegates in the Continental Congress,
who were said to have approved the resolutions,
he rashly said that "we had not a greater tory
in Congress than Hooper ; that Hughes was
very wavering, sometimes firm, sometimes feeble,
according as the day was clear or cloudy ; that
Caswell, indeed, was a good whig, and kept these
io The Mecklenburg Declaration
gentlemen to the notch, while he was present ; but
that he left us soon, and their line of conduct be-
came uncertain until Penn came, who fixed Hughes
and the vote of the State." In saying that there
was " not a greater tory " in the Continental Con-
gress than William Hooper, Jefferson clearly did
not mean that he was a loyalist : he rightly placed
Hooper and Hewes, both North Carolina signers
of the Declaration of Independence, among the
number of those sturdy patriots who hesitated to
the last to break off all political connection with the
mother country, and who had a majority in the
Continental Congress until June, 17 76. * "I must
not be understood," said Jefferson, "as sugges-
ting any doubtfulness in the State of North Caro-
lina. No State was more fixed or forward. Nor
do I affirm, positively, that this paper is a fabri-
cation ; because the proof of a negative can only
be presumptive. But I shall believe it such until
positive and solemn proof of its authenticity shall
be produced." Jefferson based his opinion
on the utter lack of contemporary evidence
of "this flaming declaration," although sent
to the Continental Congress, and the silence
of historians.
Jefferson showed unworthy pique in defending
the originality of his immortal document as far as
the " apocryphal " paper of Mecklenburg was con-
cerned ; but his letter contained facts and argu-
1 Post, pp. 69-72. Cf. W. E. Dodd, Life of Nathaniel Macon, 19-20.
According to John Adams, the majority long depended upon the vote of
Joseph Hewes, Works, x. t 35, 381.
History of the Controversy 1 1
ments which have never been shaken by testimony
since discovered.
It has entirely convinced me [wrote Adams in reply] l that
the Mecklengburg Resolutions are a fiction, when I first read
them in the Essex Register, I was struck with astonishment.
It appeared to me utterly incredible that they should be
genuine ; but there were so many circumstances calculated
to impose on the public that I thought it my duty to take
measures for the detection of the imposture, for this purpose
I instantly inclosed the Essex Register to you, knowing that
if you had either seen or heard of these resolutions, you would
have informed me of it. as they are unknown to you, they
must have been unknown to all mankind. I have sent a Copy
of your letter to Salem, not to be printed, but to be used as
decisive authority for the Editor to correct his error in the
Essex Register.
Adams asks who the " Demon " could have been
to invent the hoax, perhaps with intent to bring a
charge of plagiarism against Jefferson, or for the
" mere vanity of producing a jeu d'esprit, to set the
world agasp and afford a topic of conversation in
this piping time of Peace." He, too, appears to
have doubted after hearing from Jefferson whether
it was copied from the Raleigh newspaper, for he
wrote Jefferson a week later 3 and sent a copy of
the National Register, " to convince you that the
Essex Register is not to blame for printing the
Mecklingburg County Resolutions."
On July 24, 1819, three days after Adams wrote
Jefferson that he had sent a copy of his letter
to Salem, the Essex Register announced that the
1 Adams to Jefferson, July 21, 1819, Jefferson MSS., Library of
Congress.
* Adams to Jefferson, July 28, 1819, Jefferson MSS.
12 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Mecklenburg resolutions copied from the Raleigh
Register had not had universal credit, and that al-
though the publisher said that they rested on high
authority, the public would be pleased to know more
about them. 1 In reply, the editor of the Raleigh
Register published on August 6, 1819, a statement of
the causes that had led to the exhuming and pub-
lication of the resolutions. " The plot thickens,"
wrote Adams to a friend on seeing this explana-
tory statement. 2 " The name of the Cato of North
Carolina, the honest, hoary-headed, stern, determined
republican, Macon, strikes me with great force."
But " an accumulation of miracles," some of which
will be noticed later, opposed an insuperable barrier
to a belief by Adams in the authenticity of the Meck-
lenburg resolutions. " Haud credo ", he said. " I
cannot believe that they were known to one member
of Congress on the fourth of July, 1776. . . . The
Declaration of Independence made by Congress on
the fourth of J uly, 1 7 76, is a document, an instrument,
a record that ought not to be disgraced or trifled with.
. . . That this fiction is ancient and not modern
seems to be ascertained. It is of so much more im-
portance that it should be thoroughly investigated."
The opinions of these two last surving members
of the Continental Congress of 1775 were not made
public at this time, and the editor of the Raleigh
1 Raleigh Register, August 6, 1819. The article in the Essex Register
contained the substance of Adams's letter of July 21, 1819, to Jefferson, but
without mention of their names.
Adams to William Bentley, August 21, 1819, Works, 383-384.
Bentley had sent Adams a copy of the National Intelligencer of August
12, 1819, which contained the reply of the Raleigh Register.
History of the Controversy 13
Register considered his statement relative to the
source whence the Mecklenburg resolutions were
procured sufficient to satisfy the incredulity ex-
pressed in the newspapers of the country. " We
trust, therefore," he said, 1 " that the most sceptical
will no longer entertain a doubt of the authenticity
of this declaration of independence of Mecklenburg
county. If further evidence of these facts were
wanting, it is believed the testimony of one of the
most respectable inhabitants of this city, who was
present when the declaration was resolved upon,
might be added." Colonel William Polk, the wit-
ness referred to, procured and published the state-
ments of several men of unimpeachable integrity,
who testified that they were also present on the
occasion ; and Nathaniel Macon, who had first
brought the matter to the attention of the general
public, collected further testimony, including that of
Captain James Jack, who said that he carried to the
Continental Congress a declaration of independ-
ence adopted in Mecklenburg county in May, 1775.'
All of these aged men stated that they had been
present at Charlotte, the county seat of Mecklen-
burg, and heard a declaration of independence read
before a large concourse of people ; and while some
of them could not be precise as to the date, and
some recollected that Colonel Thomas Polk, not
Colonel Adam Alexander, issued the order for the
meeting that adopted the declaration, and that
1 Raleigh Register ', August 6, 1819.
* Ibid., August 13, 1819, February II and 18, 1820, and May 26, 1820.
This testimony was reprinted in a pamphlet in 1822 by Col. William Polk.
14 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Ephraim Brevard, not John McKnitt Alexander,
acted as secretary, they substantiated the main facts
set forth in the historical note accompanying the
resolutions in the Raleigh Register of April 30, 1819.
There was no question in North Carolina about the
genuineness of the resolutions. Dr. Joseph McKnitt
Alexander certified them to be a true copy of pa-
pers left by his father, in whose house the original
records had been destroyed by fire in 1800, and
stated that he found it "mentioned on file" that
a copy had been sent to General William R. Davie.
Shortly after General Davie's death, in 1820, there
was found among his papers a mutilated manuscript
in the handwriting of John McKnitt Alexander
which contained a part of the narrative and reso-
lutions published in 1819.
This overwhelming array of testimony satisfied
North Carolinians and apparently silenced the in-
credulous elsewhere. A knowledge of the event
it was known in 1819 to but few of the readers
of the leading newspaper of the state spread
throughout North Carolina and Tennessee, and the
bold step of the patriots of Mecklenburg gradually
became a fixed topic for eulogy at 4th of July
celebrations. 1 Its anniversary was first celebrated
at Charlotte on May 20, 1825, and a large number
of Revolutionary worthies attended. 2
Thus the matter remained until Jefferson's letter
to Adams, discrediting the authenticity of the docu-
ment, was published in 1829 in the first edition of
1 Raleigh Register files.
*Ibid., March 15, and June 7, 1825.
History of the Controversy 15
his Works. The effect was not what it might have
been had it appeared before the Mecklenburg De-
claration was so deeply rooted in the minds and
hearts of the people of all North Carolina. Its
ill-tempered scepticism and unfortunate manner of
referring to the North Carolina signers of the De-
claration of Independence, particularly the term
"tory" applied to Hooper, lost it much of its force.
In some quarters it was construed to be an aggres-
sive and " insulting attack " upon the proudest page
of the Revolutionary history of North Carolina
and upon the patriotism of her most honored dead. 1
But publications made their appearance for the first
time in North Carolina, it seems, " calling in question
the authenticity of the document as being neither
a true paper, nor a paper of a true convention." 2
To give to the world the " positive and solemn
proof" that Jefferson demanded, the legislature of
North Carolina, at its session in 1830-31, appointed
a committee " to examine, collate, and arrange " all
documentary evidence that could be obtained. The
committee affirmed the genuineness and authen-
ticity of the Mecklenburg resolutions. Its report
and accompanying documents, comprising the evi-
dence previously published and additional testi-
mony, was published in pamphlet form in 1831 by
Governor Montfort Stokes, under the authority and
direction of the General Assembly. 3
1 Joseph Seawell Jones : A Defence of the Revolutionary History of North
Carolina from the Aspersions of Mr. Jefferson. 1834. Cf. Randall's
Life of Thomas Jefferson, iii, 573.
* W. H. Foote : Sketches of North Carolina, 207.
8 This pamphlet, with the omission of the four last pages, which relate
16 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Shortly after the appearance of the " State Pam-
phlet," as it is commonly called, Peter Force,
of Washington, in compiling materials for his
American Archives, discovered in an old English
periodical, Almoris Remembrancer, a proclamation
issued by the royal governor, Josiah Martin of
North Carolina, on August 8, 1775, in which the
Governor said that he had " seen a most infamous
publication in the Cape Fear Mercury importing to
be resolves of a set of people styling themselves a
committee for the county of Mecklenburg, most
traitorously declaring the entire dissolution of the
laws, government, and constitution of this country,
and setting up a system of rule and regulation re-
pugnant to the laws and subversive of his majesty's
government," etc. The publication of the fore-
going extract from the Governor's proclamation
was followed in a very few months (in 1833), by
to the "Cumberland Association," is reprinted in the Appendix. The
preface, written by David L. Swain at the instance of Governor Montfort
Stokes, states that Jefferson's letter of July 9, 1819, "was at that time
published in various newspapers, and has been since given to the world in
the 4th volume of Mr. Jefferson's Works, page 314". The State Pamphlet
was published in July, 1831, the first edition of Jefferson's Works in 1829,
and the second in 1830. Swain was a boy of eighteen in 1819, and probably
thought that Jefferson's letter was published in that year or thereabouts
because he knew that it had appeared in the newspapers before 1830 and
was ignorant of the earlier edition of Jefferson's Works. No notice of it
has been found in the complete file of the Raleigh Register 1819-1829, in
the Library of Congress, in broken files of other North Carolina newspapers,
in the certificates of the aged witnesses who gave their testimony during
these years, nor in the mass of contemporaneous private letters on the Meck-
lenburg Declaration which the writer has had access to. The carefully
prepared sketches of the life of William Hooper that were published in the
Hillsboro Recorder in the fall of 1822 would certainly have alluded to
Jefferson's characterization of Hooper as a " tory, " which aroused ereat
History of the Controversy 17
the discovery of the original proclamation book of
Governors Tryon and Martin in the town of New
Bern by the Rev. Francis L. Hawks. 1 Here seemed
to be written contemporaneous evidence of the
authenticity of the Mecklenburg resolutions. But
many believed that the remarkable coincidence
between phrases in the Mecklenburg Declaration
and the Declaration of July 4, 1776, could not have
been the result of accident, and that although a
paper might have been drawn up in Mecklenburg
on the 2Oth of May, 1775, it was not in the words
of the instrument as it then stood. Professor
George Tucker took this view of the matter in
his Life of Thomas Jefferson, published in 1837.
In a criticism of this work in the New York Re-
view of March, 1837, Dr. Hawks roughly handled
the character of Jefferson and charged him with
plagiarism.
At this stage of the controversy, when all the
aged witnesses to the famous meeting in Charlotte
feeling in 1830, had the Essex Register printed Jefferson's letter against
the wish of John Adams. The North Carolina Journal said in 1830 :
"The publication of Mr. Jefferson's letter of the gth July, 1819, to Mr.
Adams, has caused no little surprise." The article proceeds to defend
Hooper. The Raleigh Register of September 20, 1830, copied this article
"for the purpose", the editor said, "of rendering justice to a Patriot
whose reputation had been assailed, as well as to substantiate the claim of
North Carolina to the honor of having been the first to ' pledge the lives,
the fortunes, and the sacred honor,' of her citizens, in the perilous struggle
for emancipation. When we first cast our eyes over Mr. Jefferson's letter
in relation to this subject, we were struck with the contemptuous manner
in which Mr. Hooper's name was mentioned, and intended investigating
the truth of the insinuations," etc. The article was reprinted in the State
Pamphlet, pp. 30-32, from the Raleigh Register.
i D. L. Swain in N. C. Univ. Mag. , May, 1853, and in Cooke's Revolu-
tionary History of N. C. , 104.
2
1 8 The Mecklenburg Declaration
had passed away, the matter was given an entirely
new phase by Peter Force's discovery of the pre-
amble and first four resolutions of a series dated
Charlotte Town, Mecklenburg county, May 31,
1 775, in the Massachusetts Spy or American Oracle
of Liberty of July 12, 1775. Mr. Force published
these resolutions in the Daily National Intelligencer
of December 18, 1838, with the following intro-
ductory remarks 1 :
The Resolutions of Mecklenburg county, North Carolina, of
May 20, 1775, . . . have excited more attention the last
eight years than any other occurrence of the Revolution. The
authenticity of these resolutions has been questioned, yet
no others have been produced ; and it could not be denied
that they, or others of a like character, were passed, . . .
In the course of my examinations into the popular proceed-
ings of that period of our history, I have met with another set
of resolutions adopted by Mecklenburg county in May, 1775,
which answer very well to the description given by Governor
Martin. They are expressed in somewhat different terms, and
are besides of a much wider scope than those heretofore
published; being in fact a general Declaration of Independence
of all the Colonies.
Soon afterwards Mr. Force found the resolutions
printed in more complete, yet abbreviated form in
the New York Journal; or \ The General Advertiser
of June 29, 1 775. 2 After repeated searches made at
the instance of David L. Swain, president of the
University of North Carolina, the entire series of
May 31, 1775, was brought to light in 1847 by Dr.
Joseph Johnson, of South Carolina. They were
1 From the file in the New York Public Library.
9 William Q. Force in the National Republican (Washington, D. C.)
November 24, 1873.
History of the Controversy 19
found in a copy of the South Carolina Gazette; And
Country Journal Q{ June 13, 1775, preserved in the
Charleston Library. George Bancroft found another
copy of the same paper in London a few days
later, i
The newly-discovered resolutions, even in the
condensed form in which they were first found,
were inaccurately described by Mr. Force, for they
do not declare absolute independence of Great
Britain. Some persons regarded them as a declara-
tion of independence, however, and thought the
difference of eleven days in the rival declarations
not worth disputing. Those who had doubted
the genuineness of the May 2Oth resolutions and
many others outside of North Carolina, concluded
with Mr. Force that the paper of the 3ist was
the " Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence "
which the aged men who gave their testimony
between 1819 and 1830 had in mind. Their posi-
tion was fortified by a certificate, dated September
3, 1800, appended by John McKnitt Alexander to
the copy of the May 2Oth resolutions that he gave
to Gen. W. R. Davie, from which it was learned
that those resolutions were written from memory,
after the destruction of the records in Alexander's
house in April, 1800. Although this copy was
found soon after General Davie's death in 1820,
the certificate remained unknown to the general
public until the Rev. Charles Phillips borrowed the
1 Copy of a letter of D. L. Swain to B. J. Lossing, December 20, 1851,
in the Bancroft MSS. t N. Y. Pub. Lib. Cf. Historical Mag., December,
1867.
20 The Mecklenburg Declaration
original Davie paper from Governor Swain and
published the certificate in the North Carolina
University Magazine of May, 1853. But the claims
of Mecklenburg were upheld by many able writers,
including such excellent historians as Irving, Hil-
dreth, and Charles Francis Adams. For a number
of years, however, the certificate to the Davie
paper was ignored in North Carolina.
It was contended that Alexander said more than
once that the Davie copy was substantially correct,
and that the aged witnesses, without an exception,
believed it to be correct, or stated positively that
the paper they remembered was a declaration
of independence. Dr. Francis L. Hawks testified
from his personal communications with Frangois-
Xavier Martin that the resolutions of May 2Oth
which appear in Martin's History of North Carolina,
published in 1829, and which agree substantially
with those in the Davie copy, were obtained by
Martin before 1800, the year in which the Davie
copy was written. 1 It is claimed that Martin
copied them from the Cape Fear Mercury, to
which newspaper the royal governor referred
in his proclamation and dispatches to England.
The advocates of the Mecklenburg Declaration
now argue that the so-called May 3ist Resolves
were never adopted in the form in which they were
published in the contemporaneous Charleston news-
1 The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, a lecture by Rev. Francis
L. Hawks, D.D. LL.D., delivered before the New York Historical Society,
December 16, 1852, in Cooke's Revolutionary History of N. C., 62. (Cited
hereafter as Dr. Hawks'* Lecture, Cooke.)
History of the Controversy 21
paper, but amended on the 2Oth of May into a
declaration of independence. 1
1 This hypothesis was first advanced, we believe, by Dr. George W.
Graham, in an address published in 1895 under the title of Why North
Carolinians Believe in the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, and
was elaborated by him in his latest work, The Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence^ May 20, /7J15", and the lives of its signers, (1905).
CHAPTER II
THE TRUE "DECLARATION"
THE Mecklenburg resolves of May 31, 1775,
appeared in the South- Carolina Gazette; And
Country Journal of Tuesday, June 13, 1775,
published in " Charles-Town," South Carolina, as
follows 1 :
Charlotte-Town, Mecklenburg County, May 31, 1775.
This day the Committee of this county met, and passed the
following Resolves :
WHEREAS by an Address presented to his Majesty by
both Houses of Parliament, in February last, the American
colonies are declared to be in a state of actual rebellion,
we conceive, that all laws and commissions confirmed by, or
derived from the authority of the King or Parliament, are an-
nulled and vacated, and the former civil constitution of these
colonies, for the present, wholly suspended. To provide, in
some degree, for the exigencies of this county, in the present
alarming period, we deem it proper and necessary to pass
the following Resolves, viz.
I. That all commissions, civil and military, heretofore
1 From a photographic facsimile of the original newspaper in the
Charleston Library. One of these facsimiles is in the Emmet Collection,
New York Public Library. The imprint of the newspaper is, " Charies-
Town : Printed by Charles Crouch, on the Bay, the Corner of Elliott-
Street." No. 498.
22
The True " Declaration " 23
granted by the Crown, to be exercised in these colonies, are
null and void, and the constitution of each particular colony
wholly suspended.
II. That the Provincial Congress of each province, under
the direction of the great Continental Congress, is invested
with all legislative and executive powers within their respec-
tive provinces ; and that no other legislative or executive
power, does, or can exist, at this time, in any of these colonies.
III. As all former laws are now suspended in this province,
and the Congress have not yet provided others, we judge it
necessary, for better preservation of good order, to form cer-
tain rules and regulations for the internal government of this
county, until laws shall be provided for us by the Congress.
IV. That the inhabitants of this county do meet on a cer-
tain day appointed by this Committee, and having formed
themselves into nine companies, (to wit) eight in the county,
and one in the town of Charlotte, do chusea Colonel and
other military officers, who shall hold and exercise their
several powers by virtue of this choice, and independent
of the Crown of Great-Britain, and former constitution of
this province.
V. That for the better preservation of the peace and ad-
ministration of justice, each of those companies do chuse from
their own body, two discreet freeholders, who shall be em-
powered, each by himself and singly, to decide and determine
all matters of controversy, arising within said company, under
the sum of twenty shillings ; and jointly and together, all
controversies under the sum of forty shillings ; yet so as that
their decisions may admit of appeal to the Convention of the
Select-Men of the county ; and also that any one of these men,
shall have power to examine and commit to confinement per-
sons accused of pettit larceny.
VI. That those two Select-Men, thus chosen, do jointly
and together chuse from the body of their particular company,
two persons properly qualified to act as Constables, who may
assist them in the execution of their office.
VII. That upon the complaint of any persons to either of
these Select-Men, he do issue his warrant, directed to the
24 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Constable, commanding him to bring the aggressor before him
or them, to answer said complaint.
VIII. That these eighteen Select-Men, thus appointed, do
meet every third Thursday in January, April, July, and Octo-
ber, at the Court-House, in Charlotte, to hear and determine
all matters of controversy, for sums exceeding forty shillings,
also appeals ; and in cases of felony, to commit the person or
persons convicted thereof to close confinement, until the Pro-
vincial Congress shall provide and establish laws and modes
of proceeding in all such cases.
IX. That these eighteen Select-Men, thus convened, do
chuse a Clerk, to record the transactions of said Convention,
and that said clerk, upon the application of any person or per-
sons aggrieved, do issue his warrant to one of the Constables
of the company to which the offender belongs, directing said
Constable to summons and warn said offender to appear before
the Convention, at their next sitting, to answer the aforesaid
complaint.
X. That any person making complaint upon oath, to the
Clerk, or any member of the Convention, that he has reason to
suspect, that any person or persons indebted to him, in a sum
above forty shillings, intend clandestinely to withdraw from the
county, without paying such debt, the Clerk or such member
shall issue his warrant to the Constable, commanding him to
take said person or persons into safe custody, until the next
sitting of the Convention.
XI. That when a debtor for a sum below forty shillings
shall abscond and leave the county, the warrant granted as
aforesaid, shall extend to any goods or chattels of said debtor,
as may be found, and such goods or chattels be seized and held
in custody by the Constable, for the space of thirty days ; in
which time, if the debtor fail to return and discharge the debt,
the Constable shall return the warrant to one of the Select-
Men of the company, where the goods are found, who,
shall issue orders to the Constable to sell such a part of said
goods, as shall amount to the sum due : That when the debt
exceeds forty shillings, the return shall be made to the Con-
vention, who shall issue orders for sale.
The True " Declaration" 25
XII. That all receivers and collectors of quit-rents, public
and county taxes, do pay the same into the hands of the
chairman of this Committee, to be by them disbursed as the
public exigencies may require ; and that such receivers and
collectors proceed no further in their office, until they be
approved of by, and have given to, this Committee, good and
sufficient security, for a faithful return of such monies when
collected.
XIII. That the Committee be accountable to the county
for the application of all monies received from such public
officers.
XIV. That all these officers hold their commissions during
the pleasure of their several constituents.
XV. That this Committee will sustain all damages that
ever hereafter may accrue to all or any of these officers thus
appointed, and thus acting, on account of their obedience and
conformity to these Resolves.
XVI. That whatever person shall hereafter receive a com-
mission from the Crown, or attempt to exercise any such
commission heretofore received, shall be deemed an enemy to
his country, and upon information being made to the Captain
of the company in which he resides, the said company shall
cause him to be apprehended, and conveyed before the two
Select-Men of the said company, who, upon proof of the fact,
shall commit him, the said offender, to safe custody, until the
next sitting of the Committee, who shall deal with him as
prudence may direct.
XVII. That any person refusing to yield obedience to the
above Resolves, shall be considered equally criminal, and
liable to the same punishment, as the offenders above last
mentioned.
XVIII. That these Resolves be in full force and virtue,
until instructions from the Provincial Congress, regulating the
jurisprudence of the province, shall provide otherwise, or the
legislative body of Great-Britain, resign its unjust and arbitrary
pretentions with respect to America.
XIX. That the eight militia companies in the county, pro-
vide themselves with proper arms and accoutrements, and
26 The Mecklenburg Declaration
hold themselves in readiness to execute the commands and
directions of the General Congress of this province and this
Committee.
XX. That the Committee appoint Colonel Thomas Polk,
and Doctor Joseph Kenedy, to purchase 300 Ib. of powder,
600 Ib. of lead, 1000 flints, for the use of the militia of this
county, and deposit the same in such place as the Committee
may hereafter direct.
Signed by order of the Committee^
EPH. BREVARD, Clerk of the Committee.
The fact that these resolves were adopted in
Mecklenburg County in May, 1775, which is the
foundation of the argument against the alleged
declaration of independence of the twentieth of
the same month, has been denied by those who
find them more or less incompatible with the de-
claration which they uphold, on the ground that it
rests solely on the authority of a Charleston news-
paper, and that, although the editor was a Tory, he
printed them without remark, thereby showing that
he was unwilling to vouch for their having been
adopted on the date and in the form published. 1
This contention arises partly from a lack of in-
formation concerning Charleston printers and Amer-
ican newspapers of 1775. The South-Carolina Ga-
zette; And Country Journal, which printed the
Mecklenburg resolves, was conducted by Charles
Crouch, a sound Whig, and the one other Charleston
newspaper published in June, 1775, also supported
the cause of the colonies. 2 One who searches the
1 Geo. W. Graham: The Mecklenburg Declaration, pp. 43-44, 52. Cf.
Gov. Graham's Address, pp. 83-86.
Isaiah Thomas: History of Printing, ii., pp. 157-169, 366, 371, and
private information from Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., Sec. Historical Commission
The True ' ' Declaration " 27
newspaper files of that period will turn many a
page to find a word of comment accompanying any
public document printed therein. In some of these
no editorial matter whatever was printed.
But another contemporary newspaper has been
brought to light which confirms the genuineness
and authenticity of the Mecklenburg resolves of
May 31, 1775. On Friday, June 16, 1775, three
days after the resolves were published in Charles-
ton, they appeared in the North-Carolina Gazette?
printed weekly at New-Bern, two hundred miles
away. With the exception of a few words, mostly
misprinted, no doubt, the two series of resolves
and their headings are identical in form. The
dates of the publication of the resolves in Charles-
ton and New-Bern, which are nearly equidistant
from Charlotte, being about two hundred miles
from that town, precisely fit the situation in point
of time, and indicate that they were dispatched from
Charlotte by the committee that adopted them. It
is incredible that both messengers should have been
so deceived as to make their arduous journeys of
two hundred miles on horseback to have published
in Charleston and New-Bern a series of resolves
that were adopted eleven days before their ac-
credited date, as some would have us believe, in a
of South Carolina. The Mecklenburg resolves have often been erroneously
credited to the South-Carolina Gazette ', a third Charleston newspaper of the
period. It was conducted by Peter Timothy, a patriot of patriots, and its
publication was suspended from April until September, 1775.
1 The resolves in the North-Carolina Gazette are reprinted in the
Appendix.
28 The Mecklenburg Declaration
form so different as to change their whole tenor
and import, although the date and nature of the
true resolves were known, according to the testi-
mony of all witnesses, to nearly every man in
Mecklenburg County. Other evidence will be ad-
duced which confirms the form and date of the
resolves published in the Charleston and New-Bern
newspapers.
It will be observed that the Mecklenburg resolves
of May 31, 1775, constitute a virtual declaration of
independence. They declare that all civil and mili-
tary commissions granted by the crown are null and
void, and the constitution of each colony wholly sus-
pended ; that legislative and executive powers are
vested solely in the Provincial Congress of each col-
ony ; that the people of Mecklenburg should there-
fore form certain regulations for the government of
the county ; that county military officers, when
chosen by the people, shall exercise their powers by
virtue of such popular choice, and " independent of
the Crown of Great Britain and former constitution
of this province"; that a body of select-men having
administrative and judicial powers, called a conven-
tion or committee, shall be elected by the people ;
that any person thereafter attempting to exercise a
commission from the crown shall be " deemed an
enemy to his country ", committed to custody, and
dealt with as prudence may direct ; that all who re-
fuse obedience to these resolves shall be considered
equally criminal ; and that these resolves shall be
" in full force and virtue until instructions from the
Provincial Congress regulating the jurisprudence
The True " Declaration " 29
of the province shall provide otherwise, or the legis-
lative body of Great-Britain resign its unjust and
arbitrary pretent ions with respect to America"
By declaring British authority and British forms
of government to be wholly suspended in all the
colonies and all legislative and executive powers to
be vested in the Provincial Congresses, the people
of Mecklenburg took a more advanced step in the
direction of independence than any other organized
body of their compatriots had taken. British rule
was regarded as suspended, not annihilated, and the
resolves were defeasible by a change in the attitude
of the British Government; but the document might
easily be mistaken for a declaration of independence.
It has been repeatedly called such by intelligent
critics of our own day. In effect, Mecklenburg
County declared independence subject to a contin-
gent limitation. The significance of this limitation
might have been overlooked by many persons in
1775, and the limitation itself entirely forgotten in
later years. Since it so happened that there was
no occasion to think of the defeasibility of the re-
solves in virtue of the contingency, and Mecklenburg
County was never afterwards under British rule,
how, in years after the great Declaration of July 4,
1776, would men of Mecklenburg have been likely
to recall their precursive step, when the precise
terms of the instrument by which they had renounced
British authority, and which are so essential in de-
termining its import, had passed out of their minds ?
If we conclude that many persons who were present
at a meeting in Charlotte in May, 1775, who saw and
30 The Mecklenburg Declaration
heard what transpired, and testified positively years
afterwards that the paper then adopted was a declar-
ation of independence, could not have been mis-
taken as to that fact, then we are confronted by two
sets of resolves which wrought a fundamental change
in the civil government of Mecklenburg County
in May, 1775, one of which was entirely forgot-
ten by all who remembered the other.
The paper of May 31, 1775, it should be borne in
mind, was not rescued from oblivion until after all the
survivors who said they had been present in Char-
lotte when a declaration of independence was made
had passed away; while that of May 20, 1775,
which they were called upon to verify after a lapse
of half a century, was pointed out to them as a re-
production of an original record. Not until the
publication in 1853 of the certificate appended by
John McKnitt Alexander to a copy of the latter
paper that he gave to General William R. Davie,
did the general public learn that it was written from
memory in 1800, shortly after the destruction of the
records in Alexander's house.
Reserving for critical analysis the document al-
leged to have been adopted on May 20, 1 775, the re-
collections of the aged witnesses concerning the
terms of the document which they understood to be
a declaration of independence, and all other eviden-
ces of a later date than 1776, we shall consider (i)
the documents of May 20, and May 31,1775, in their
relation to each other, assuming that both were
adopted, and in their relation to the most significant
facts and circumstances associated with the docu-
The True ' Declaration " 31
ment which all the witnesses and participants at
the famous meeting had in mind, viewed in the
light of contemporaneous testimony; (2) contempo-
raneous evidence of either document ; and (3) the
subsequent conduct of reputed authors and sup-
porters of the alleged declaration of independence.
CHAPTER III
THE RIVAL DECLARATIONS COMPARED
THE analogous Mecklenburg manifestoes of
May, 1775, if that of May 2Oth be authentic, were
issued by the same representative body, known
as the Committee of the County of Mecklenburg.
The May 3ist resolves were published in con-
temporary newspapers as resolves of this body.
The historical note accompanying the document
found among John McKnitt Alexander'spapers, and
published in the Raleigh Register in 1819, states that
it was adopted by a " delegation," or convention of
" delegates," composed of two persons chosen from
each militia company in Mecklenburg County ; but
in his original draft of this narrative, written in
i8oo y John McKnitt Alexander invariably refers
to the same body as a " Committee" and to its mem-
bers as " Committee Men" 1 These and other dis-
crepancies indicate that the first draft of the his-
torical statement, which will be examined later, was
revised at the instance of John McKnitt Alexander
by another person.
1 Post, Chap. IX.
32
The Rival Declarations Compared 33
Several Mecklenburg fathers who were called
upon to substantiate the facts set forth in the
Alexander narrative used the terms " delegation "
and "delegate"; others said that the body which
declared independence was a " Committee." These
witnesses tell substantially the same story, and all
clearly had in mind the same meeting. General
Joseph Graham, one of the most intelligent of
their number, wrote in 1830 : " During the Winter
and Spring preceding the event, several popular
meetings of the -people were held in Charlotte,
two of which I attended. . . On the 2Oth of
May, 1775, besides the two persons elected from
each militia company, (usually called Committee-
men), a much larger number of citizens attended in
Charlotte than at any former meeting perhaps half
the men in the county." " At the time those resolu-
tions were adopted," said General Graham in 1835,*
" there were 13 militia companies in Mecklenburg
and Cabarrus [then a part of Mecklenburg] Coun-
ties ; the practice was, at company muster, each
company elected two of their number as committee-
men, usually those for whom they had the most
confidence in for intelligence. As well as I can
remember, it was first practiced in the Autumn of
the year 1774, and had several meetings in the
Winter and Spring preceding the meeting of May,
1775. The Committee were continued for 15 years
i Address of General Graham at Charlotte, May 20, 1835, on the occasion
of the celebration of the anniversary of the Mecklenburg Declaration, in the
North Carolina Booklet for January, 1906, copied from the Western Caro-
linian (Salisbury, N. C.), June 20, 1835.
3
34 The Mecklenburg Declaration
after. What time they ceased is unknown to me.*'
The Alexander narrative also refers to earlier
meetings mentioned by General Graham, and to
" the continued exertion of said delegation."
Committees, now usually called Committees of
Safety, were established in the counties and princi-
pal towns of North Carolina in accordance with
the articles of American Association, adopted by
the Continental Congress in October, 1774.* The
Provincial Convention of August, 1774, recom-
mended that committees of five persons be chosen
in each county, 2 but of the few counties which
acted upon the recommendation, none, so far as is
known, restricted membership to five persons, and
several, if not all, were reorganized after the receipt
of the advice of the Continental Congress two
months later. The records of some of these
committees show a much larger membership
than the Mecklenburg committee of May, 1775.
According to the combined recollections of men
who were present at the meeting which is
alleged to have issued a declaration of indepen-
dence, the Mecklenburg committee had about
thirty members twenty-six, if the number of
militia companies given by General Graham be
correct. All of the witnesses agree that it con-
sisted of two persons elected from each militia
company. Rowan County, then adjacent to Meck-
lenburg, furnishes one of the earliest instances
of an election of committeemen from the county
1 Colonial Records of North Carolina, ix. and n., passim.
* Ibid., ix., 1047.
The Rival Declarations Compared 35
militia companies. New elections of committees
were frequent in all counties. On February 8,
1775, the Rowan committee, which was established
in the autumn of 1774, resolved, "That it be
recommended to the Inhabitants of Rowan County
that the several Militia Companies meet together,
and each choose a Committee Man, which Com-
mittee so chosen shall meet at Salisbury the first
of March particularly that the said
Committee make such Resolves or adopt such
Measures as may enforce the observation of the
Resolves of the General Congress and most effect-
ually secure to America her natural and political
privileges." 1 This resembles the order for the
election and meeting in Mecklenburg referred to
in the Alexander narrative. The inference, then,
to be drawn from contemporaneous records, and
the direct statements of John McKnitt Alexander
and other witnesses in later years, prove that a
committee was organized in Mecklenburg County
in the fall of 1774, that a new committee was
elected in May, 1775 and that this body was the
" delegation " which met in the same month and
adopted the resolves which were understood to be
a declaration of independence.
We have now to deal with two sets of resolutions
adopted by the Mecklenburg committee at meet-
1 Colonial Records of North Carolina, x. , 83-84. The proceedings of
the Rowan Committee are erroneously dated July 8, 1775, for they refer to
the meeting of the Continental Congress on May 10, 1775, as a future
event. In his History of North Carolina, p. 363, John H. Wheeler, copy-
ing from the original records, dates them February 8, 1775.
36 The Mecklenburg Declaration
ings held in May, 1 775, the one a formal declaration
of independence, made on the 2Oth of the month,
the other, decidedly independent in spirit, adopted
on the 3 1 st. Both declare the political status of
the people of Mecklenburg County, and both provide
a system of county government. Until very recent-
ly, it has been held that the paper of May 3ist fol-
lowed as an appropriate consequence of a dissolution
of all political connection with Great Britain by the
declaration of the 2oth : it was said to be " an au-
thentic document, founded on that declaration, and
meant to carry its principles into action." 1 The
intrinsic evidence of the document of May 31, 1775,
shows that it had no relation to an antecedent decla-
ration of independence. It contains not a hint of
the declaration which is presumed to have been its
foundation, but proceeds on the assumption, ex-
pressly stated in the preamble, that British author-
ity was suspended, not by the men of Mecklenburg,
but by a declaration of Parliament that the colonies
were in actual rebellion. If the document of May
2Oth be genuine, then a representative body assem-
bled in Charlotte on May igth, vested with unlimited
authority, adopted certain measures after a public
discussion and two days sitting, which were unani-
mously approved by a vast concourse of people, and
met again eleven days later to do it all over again
in a milder way. On the 2oth of May the com-
mitteemen declared the people of Mecklenburg to
be free and independent of Great Britain, adopted
1 Dr. Hawks' s Lecture, Cooke's Retfy Hist, of N. C., 77; Gov. Graham's
Address, 8l et seq.
The Rival Declarations Compared 37
all their former laws, reinstated in their commands
military officers who conformed to the new " regula-
tions," as they were called, and assumed to them-
selves, in the character of justices of the peace and
committeemen, all judicial and administrative au-
thority. " A number of bye-laws were also added,"
says the Alexander narrative, " merely to protect the
association from confusion, and to regulate their
general conduct as citizens," " bye-laws and regula-
tions for the government of a standing Committee
of Public Safety," wrote Humphrey Hunter, who
was present. The county government thus pro-
vided for was to continue in operation, " until a
more general and organized government be estab-
lished in this province." On May 3ist the com-
mitteemen met again and abrogated British laws
which had been eleven days abrogated and adopted
as a " rule of life " for the people of independent
Mecklenburg County; vacated offices held under the
crown which had been eleven days vacated and
partly or wholly filled by new appointments ; de-
prived of their commands the military officers rein-
stated on the 2oth by ordering an election of new
ones by popular vote ; and legislated themselves out
of office by resolving that civil officers should be
elected to perform the identical duties which they
had imposed upon themselves eleven days earlier!
"A number of bye-laws were added, merely to pro-
tect the association from confusion, and to regulate
their general conduct as citizens." No reasons for
this anomalous second action are given. No al-
lusion is made to the previous action. To com-
38 The Mecklenburg Declaration
plete the work of undoing and doing again in a
milder way all that had been done on the 2Oth,
which had met with universal satisfaction, and which
was now ignored, the committeemen of the 3ist
annulled their declaration of independence : they
now declared that the constitution of the province
was only suspended, and that the new order of
things should continue " until instructions from the
Provincial Congress regulating the jurisprudence of
this province shall provide otherwise, or the legis-
lative body of Great Britain resign its unjust and
arbitrary preventions with respect to A merica" Can
it be believed that half the men of Mecklenburg
County acclaimed with shouts of joy an irrevocable
declaration of independence, saw their representa-
tives pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor
to maintain it, and permitted the same men to as-
semble on the same spot eleven days later to recant
their bold words ?
Few attempts have been made to explain away
the fact that the document of May 2oth is con-
tradicted by and inconsistent with the document of
May 3 1 st. Only one need be noticed. It has
been suggested that the patriots of Mecklenburg
were precipitated by the news of the battle of
Lexington into an act which on cooler reflection
they recognized to be premature and damaging
to the cause of the colonies ; that they mag-
nanimously met eleven days later and adopted
another series of resolutions pitched in a lower
key, which were hurried into print, and that meas-
ures were taken in Mecklenburg and in other parts
The Rival Declarations Compared 39
of the province to suppress the declaration of in.
dependence. 1 This hypothesis is rebutted by the
very men whose testimony is mainly relied upon to
support that declaration. They point with pride to
the fact that the resolutions they remembered were
sustained with firmness and energy, and that the
" harmony, unanimity, and exertion in the cause of
liberty and independence, evidently resulting from
these regulations, and the continued exertion of
said delegation, apparently tranquilised this sec-
tion of the State, and met with the concurrence
and high approbation of the Council of Safety,
who held their sessions at Newbern and Wil-
mington. ..." Captain James Jack, who tells us
that he bore the resolutions to Philadelphia to lay
them before the Continental Congress, vividly re-
collected how they were read in open court when
he passed through Salisbury, in the adjoining
county of Rowan, and approved by all. Captain
Jack is known to have left Charlotte after May 31,
1775. Not one of the fourteen who said that
they were present in Charlotte in May, 1775, or
thereabouts, when independence was declared, re-
called that two series of resolves were adopted in
that month which overturned the civil government
of Mecklenburg County, or intimated that the
declaration of independence was suppressed in
Mecklenburg or elsewhere in North Carolina.
The intrinsic evidence of the rival declarations,
strengthened by the fact that the witnesses remem-
1 New York Herald, May 3, 1875, editorial. Cf. Dr. Hawks' s Lecture^
Cooke, 91, and Gov. Graham's Address, 83-84.
40 The Mecklenburg Declaration
bered only one such document, which was not
suppressed or superseded, is strongly against the
theory that both were adopted. Their similarity
indicates that one is the basis of the other. The
advocates of the document of May 20, 1775, re-
cently saw that their only logical position was to
deny that the May 3ist resolves were adopted on
the date and in the form published in the South-
Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal of June
13, 1775, and to argue that they were drawn up
before the receipt of the news of Lexington, and
amended on the 2Oth into a declaration of inde-
pendence. This position has been rendered un-
tenable by the discovery of a copy of the North-
Carolina Gazette of June 16, 1775, containing the
same resolves under the same date as were printed
in the Charleston newspaper. But we have not to
rely wholly upon newspapers for contemporary
proofs that the May 3ist resolves were adopted.
CHAPTER IV
THE LOST " CAPE-FEAR MERCURY "
THE men who attended a meeting of the Meck-
lenburg committee in May, 1775, and testified in
later years that a declaration of independence was
adopted, state that it was read by Colonel Thomas
Polk from the steps of the court-house in Charlotte
before " perhaps half the men in the county," or
" the males generally." Four said that " the reso-
lutions had considerable effect in harmonizing the
people in two or three adjoining counties." We
have seen that none intimated that they were sup-
pressed in any part of the province of North
Carolina, and that Captain James Jack stated that
they were read aloud in open court at Salisbury,
which is forty miles distant from Charlotte, early
in June, 1775. Assuming that they were sup-
pressed, can it be believed that nobody in Meck-
lenburg or Rowan County could have been im-
prudent enough to spread the startling news
that the inhabitants of Mecklenburg had formally
declared, at a large public meeting, that they were
free and independent of Great Britain ? And did
41
42 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Whigs and Tories conspire to keep it secret ? One
who was present in Salisbury states that the news
brought by Captain Jack caused a great stir among
the Tories of the town, and that their leaders tried
to prevent Jack from proceeding to Philadelphia. 1
The Tories of Mecklenburg would have hurried to
the British authorities in spite of efforts to suppress
it, and the declaration of independence would soon
have been known and discussed in all parts of the
colony. Notwithstanding this fact, a search ex-
tending over a period of nearly a century, begun
at a time when a great mass of contemporary
records now lost were extant, has produced but
one item of contemporary evidence which the ad-
vocates of the document of May 20, 1775, rely
upon to prove its authenticity. The document is
alleged to have been printed in the Cape-Fear
Mercury, a newspaper printed in Wilmington,
North Carolina ; for Governor Josiah Martin's de-
scriptions of a manifesto of Mecklenburg County
contained in a copy of this newspaper which he
sent to England and which disappeared from the
British State Paper Office in 1837 under circum-
stances which indicate, it is said, that it contained
the document of May 2Oth apply to nothing less
than a declaration of independence. A plausible
argument has been advanced to prove that the
resolutions of May 2oth in Martin's History of
i MS. of Adam Brevard, brother of Ephraim Brevard, dated July 13,
1824, copied into Wheeler's Reminiscences and Memoirs of North Caro-
lina, 241-243, from the Southern Home for July 5, 1875. Cf. Gen. Jos.
Graham's testimony.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury" 43
North Carolina were copied from the Cape-Fear
Mercury}- In treating the testimony of Governor
Martin, we fortunately have access to all of his
correspondence with the home government, his
proclamations, and the records of his Council.
During the last week in May, 1775, Governor
Martin was compelled by fear of personal violence
to flee from his palace at New- Bern, the seat of
government, and to take refuge at Fort Johnston,
at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, about thirty
miles below Wilmington. Here he was soon cut
off to a great extent from communication with
loyalists in the interior of the province by the
vigilance of the town and county committees.
The earliest mention of this fact in the Governor's
correspondence is contained in a letter of July 6,
1775, to the Earl of Dartmouth, the British Sec-
retary for the Colonies, in which he said that a
servant whom he had dispatched to the post-office
at Wilmington for his letters three days before was
stopped by the committee of the town of Bruns-
wick and obliged to swear that he had no letters
for him before he was allowed to proceed. 2 But
Governor Martin had a large following in the pro-
vince, particularly in the upper and middle Cape
Fear regions, and it would have been physically
impossible for the patriot party to prevent the
news of a declaration of independence publicly
proclaimed in Mecklenburg County from reaching
1 George W. Graham: The Mecklenburg Declaration.
9 Col. Rec. ofN. C., x., 43~44, 69.
44 The Mecklenburg Declaration
him. 1 Wilmington was the principal trading town
of the province, the stronghold of the Whig party
in the populous Cape Fear section, famous for its
early and active support of the cause of the country,
and the home of many of the most influential Whigs
of North Carolina, such as Cornelius Harnett,
whom Josiah Quincy called "the Samuel Adams
of North Carolina," the Ashes, William Hooper,
Archibald MacLaine, and others ; but there was a
large body of Tories in the town, 2 and had it been
known there that Mecklenburg County declared in-
dependence, oral intelligence, if not the declaration
itself, would have quickly reached Governor Martin.
A proclamation issued by Governor Martin from
Fort Johnston on June 16, I775, 3 nearly a month
after the alleged promulgation of the Mecklenburg
Declaration, shows that he had not heard of it at
that late date. His thunderbolts were directed
against "sundry ill-disposed persons," particularly
in the county of Brunswick, who were endeavoring
by " false, seditious, and scandalous reports " "to
engage the People to subscribe papers obliging
themselves to be prepared with Arms, to array
themselves in companies, and to submit to the
illegal and usurped authorities of Committees, cover-
ing their flagitious and abominable designs with
pretended apprehensions of intestine insurrections
and professions of duty and allegiance to the King,
1 Wm. E. Dodd : Life of Nathaniel Macon, 19-21 ; Sabine's Loyalists
of the American Revolution , i., 36. Sabine holds that the loyalist party in
North Carolina was as numerous as the Whigs.
* Col Rec. ofN. C 1 ., x., 48. Ibid., x., 16-19.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury " 45
in order the more effectually to deceive and betray
the innocent and unwary people into the most
flagrant violations thereof." It is clear that Gov-
ernor Martin knew nothing of a declaration of inde-
pendence emanating from Mecklenburg County ;
nor had he seen the May 3ist resolves, for they
contain no professions of duty to the king and
only a tacit acknowledgement of allegiance. The
May 3 ist resolves were first published in North Car-
olina on June i6th, the day on which this proclama-
tion was issued. They appeared in the North Caro-
lina Gazette, of New-Bern, on that day. New-Bern
was about a hundred miles from Fort Johnston ;
Governor Martin had few sympathizers there, 1 and
advices from them were no doubt very infrequent.
Before proceeding to Governor Martin's refer-
ences to an extraordinary publication of Meck-
lenburg County, an event will be noticed which
should be considered in connection with them, and
which reveals at the same time the political senti-
ments of the Whig leaders of North Carolina at
this moment and their ignorance of the supposed
declaration of independence. On June 20, 1775,
four days after the date of the governor's pro-
clamation, a general meeting of the committees of
the Wilmington district was held in the town of
Wilmington. 2 This body adopted the " Associa-
tion" agreed to by the committee of New Hanover
County on June iQth, which, with some textual
changes, was the same as that agreed to at Charles-
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 43.
x., 24-29 ; proceedings of the meeting.
46 The Mecklenburg Declaration
ton on June 3d, in the Provincial Congress of South
Carolina. The Association was drawn up after the
receipt of the news of Lexington, and was the
boldest document other than the Mecklenburg
resolves of May 31, 1775, that had been put for-
ward up to that time in the Carolinas. It is best
known as the " Cumberland Association," having
been later adopted by the committee for the county
of Cumberland. Its subscribers solemnly engaged
to associate as a band for the defence of their rights,
and to go forth and be ready to sacrifice their
lives and fortunes at the call of the Provincial or
Continental Congresses ; " This obligation", it ran,
" to continue in full force until a reconciliation
shall take place between Great Britain and America^
upon constitutional principles, an event we most
ardently desire, and we will hold those persons
inimical to the liberties of the Colonies who shall
refuse to subscribe this Association." Though driven
to arms in defence of their constitutional rights, inde-
pendence was not the aim nor the wish of the in-
habitants of the Wilmington district, nor, as far as
contemporaneous records show, of any organised
body of men in America at this time. The same
meeting that adopted the Association appointed
Robert Howe, Archibald MacLaine, and Samuel
Ashe, three of the most able and active patriots in the
colony, to draw up a reply to the Governor's procla-
mation of the 1 6th of June. They reported a
document which stated that unconstitutional and
oppressive acts of Parliament had laid the people of
the colony under the necessity of appointing Com-
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury " 47
mittees for the several districts, towns, and counties,
and that " as his Excellency has endeavored by his
Proclamation to weaken the influence and prejudice
the characters of those Committees and the persons
appointed under them by wantonly, cruelly, and
unjustly representing them as ill-disposed people,
propagating false and scandalous reports, deroga-
tory to the honor and justice of the King, and also
by other illiberal and scandalous imputations ex-
pressed in the said Proclamation : We, then, the Com-
mittees of the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick,
Bladen, Duplin, and Onslow, in order to prevent
the pernicious influence of the said Proclamation,
do unanimously resolve that in our opinion his
Excellency, Josiah Martin, Esq., hath by the said
Proclamation, and by the whole tenor of his con-
duct since the unhappy disputes between Great
Britain and the colonies, discovered himself to be
an enemy to the happiness of this colony in par-
ticular and to the freedom, rights, and privileges of
America in general." It is incredible that the
authors of this paper, who thus emphatically belie
the Governor's imputations that the committees
of the province were acting otherwise than as sub-
jects of King George III. contending for their
political rights, and driven to extreme measures,
could have known that the committee of Meck-
lenburg County declared independence of Great
Britain a month before. And yet, if there was
such a declaration, it would certainly have been
made known to them and to many others in the
large district which they represented.
48 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Before the meeting at Wilmington adjourned,
(June 21, 1775), the Association and the reply to
the Governor's proclamation were ordered to be
published in the newspapers. They appeared, in
all probability, in the Cape-Fear Mercury of Friday,
June 23, 1775. This paper was printed weekly at
Wilmington under the patronage of the local com-
mittee by Adam Boyd, one of its members. 1 The
Cape-Fear Mercury and the North-Carolina Ga-
zette were the only newspapers published in the
province.
By June 25th, the news of both an extraordinary
publication of Mecklenburg County and of the meet-
ing at Wilmington had reached Governor Martin.
He addressed the Council held at Fort Johnston on
that day as follows : 2 " The seditious Combinations
that have been formed and are still forming in sev-
eral parts of this Colony and the violent measures
they pursue in compelling His Majesty's Subjects
by various kinds of intimidations to subscribe As-
sociations inconsistent with their Duty and alle-
gience to their Sovereign, The obliging People to
frequent meetings in Arms, by the usurped Author-
ity of Committees, the recent Assemblage of a Body
of armed Men in the town of Wilmington for the
purpose of awing His Majesty's Loyal Subjects there
into submission to the dictates of an illegal and ty-
rannical tribunal erected there under that name, 3 and
1 Stephen B. Weeks : Press of N. C. in the i8th Century, 33.
a Col Rcc. ofN. C, x., 38-39.
8 The Governor refers to the general meeting of the committees at Wil-
mington on June 2Oth and 2ist, and the signing of the Association by the
inhabitants of the town. See Col. Rec. of N. C. x., 236.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury" 49
the late most treasonable publication of a Commit-
tee in the County of Mecklenburg explicitly re-
nouncing obedience to His Majesty's Government
and all lawfull authority whatsoever, are such auda-
cious and dangerous proceedings, and so directly
tending to the dissolution of the Constitution of this
Province, That I have thought it indispensably my
Duty to advise with you on the measures proper to
be taken for the maintenance of His Majesty's
Government and the Constitution of this Country,
thus flagrantly insulted and violated." Governor
Martin's description of the publication of the Meck-
lenburg Committee would apply to a formal decla-
ration of independence ; yet he puts it in the same
class with other " seditious " proceedings " directly
tending to the dissolution of the Constitution of
this Province," particularly the signing of the new
Association.
On June 30, 1775, five days after the meeting
of the Council, Governor Martin wrote from
Fort Johnston to the Earl of Dartmouth, the
British Secretary of State for the American De-
partment. * " The Resolves of the Committee of
Mecklenburgh," he said, "which your Lordship will
find in the enclosed Newspaper, surpass all the hor-
rid and treasonable publications that the inflamma-
tory spirits of this Continent have yet produced, and
your Lordship may depend its Authors and Abettors
will not escape my due notice whenever my hands
are sufficiently strengthened to attempt the recov-
ery of the lost authority of Government. A copy
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x, 41-50.
50 The Mecklenburg Declaration
of these Resolves I am informed were sent off by
express to the Congress at Philadelphia as soon as
they were passed in the Committee." The gover-
nor refers to only three enclosures in this letter
a newspaper, his proclamation of June i6th, and
the minutes of the Council at Fort Johnston on
June 25th. Of his proclamation he wrote : " The
Newspaper enclosed will show your Lordship that
the same spirit of sedition and extravagance that gave
cause to that Act of Government has produced an
impudent and formal contradiction of the undeniable
truths it contains, under the authority of a Com-
mittee. . . . According to custom and as the last
resort of malice and falsehood, your Lordship will
find this Publication prescribes me as an Enemy to
this Province in particular and to America in Gen-
eral, . . ." The governor plainly referred to
the reply made to his proclamation by the general
committee at Wilmington on June 2ist, which, as
we have seen, was ordered on that day to be printed
in the newspapers, and which most probably
appeared in the Cape-Fear Mercury of June 23d,
the organ of the Wilmington Committee.
The original dispatch of Governor Martin of
June 30, 1775, is in the Public Record Office in
London, together with the proclamation and min-
utes of the Council, but the third inclosure, the
newspaper, is missing. Written across the back of
the dispatch is this pencilled note : " A Printed
Paper taken out by Mr. Turner for Mr. Stevenson,
August 1 5th 1837." Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia,
was American Minister at the Court of St. James,
The Lost "Cape-Fear Mercury" 51
1836-1841. He never took part in the discussion
of the Mecklenburg Declaration, and, according to
a memorandum found among his papers after his
death, the newspaper was borrowed for another
person. 1 It was removed from the British State
Paper Office at a time when Jefferson was openly
charged with plagiarism, and the failure to return it
has been regarded by the most recent advocates of
the document of May 20, 1775, as presumptive
evidence that it contained that document. 2 Had
the matter rested thus, the Mecklenburg contro-
versy might have gone on forever. But all of Lord
Dartmouth's American papers are not on file in the
Public Record Office, and among his manuscripts
in the possession of the present Earl of Dartmouth
1 New York Herald, May 19, 1875, containing Herald correspondent's
interview with Andrew Stevenson's son, Senator John W. Stevenson.
2 Dr. Geo. W. Graham devotes several pages of his volume on the Meck-
lenburg Declaration to the Cape-Fear Mercury episode. He argues that
Dr. Hawks's article in the New- York Review for March, 1837, in which he
charged Jefferson with plagiarism, "announced that the Mecklenburg
Declaration was first published in the Cape-Fear Mercury in June, 1775,
which paper was still preserved in the Colonial Archives in England " ;
that Andrew Stevenson, a friend of Jefferson, therefore borrowed the news-
paper and never returned it j that "Jared Sparks, the historian, visited
London in search of that copy of the Mercury in 1840-41, and of course
must have made the acquaintance of Mr. Stevenson " ; and that during the
twenty years previous to Mr. Stevenson's death in 1857, when the contro-
versy as to the genuineness of the Mecklenburg Declaration had become
intensified by Mr. Force's discovery of the May 3ist resolves, "nowhere
do we find that Mr. Stevenson ever participated in the debate, although,
with the Cape-Fear Mercury in his possession, he could have settled the
controversy for all time." In point of fact, Dr. Hawks "announced" in the
New York Review that " the Mecklenburg document was first published in
a newspaper of North Carolina, called ' The Cape Fear Mercury,' " and as
authority for his statement quoted Governor Martin's proclamation of
August 8, 1775, which had been found and made public several years
52 The Mecklenburg Declaration
is a duplicate of Governor Martin's dispatch of
June 30, 1775, which contains, in place of a news-
paper, a manuscript copy of the Mecklenburg
Resolves of May 31, 1775. The duplicate dispatch
is in the same clerk's or secretary's hand and in the
same words as the original in the Public Record
Office, and is signed by the Governor. Both were
numbered 34 by Governor Martin's secretary.
The duplicate is indorsed : " North Carolina. Fort
before. Dr. Hawks knew nothing of any copy of the newspaper in Eng-
land, or of any correspondence of Governor Martin concerning the Meck-
lenburg resolves. Jared Sparks was ignorant of it when he went to Europe
to make transcripts of MSS. relating to America. In a volume in the
Sparks Collection (Harvard University Library), entitled Selections and
Memoranda made in the Public Offices of London and Paris and in tJie
British Museum, 1840-41, there is an extract from Governor Martin's letter
of June 30, 1775, and the following note by Mr. Sparks. "The news-
paper referred to above is not among the files in the State Paper
Office, but it was undoubtedly the 'Cape Fear Gazette' [over the
word Gazette is written in the same hand 'Mercury?']. The ex-
tract furnishes a proof, that the Resolves, as they were actually
passed, were the same as contained in the Newspaper; and that the Re-
solves published recently in North Carolina, purporting to be copied from
a manuscript found among the papers of General Davie, are essentially
altered from the original, and that this alteration took place after the
' Declaration of Independence.' I believe Mr. Peter Force has in his pos-
session the Newspaper, which contains the original resolves. I think, also,
that they have been reprinted, within the last year or two, in the
'Southern Literary Messenger' at Richmond." The May 3ist resolves
were partly printed in the Southern Literary Messenger of June, 1839.
Jared Sparks was the first to call attention to Governor Martin's letter of
June 30, 1775. He stated that the newspaper alluded to could not be
found. (Gov. Swain in Cooke's Rev'y Hist, of N. C. t 105.) It is entirely
gratuitous to suppose that Andrew Stevenson stole the newspaper loaned to
him as a courtesy of the Keeper of the British State Papers, or that he
ever examined it or knew its importance when it was in his possession, and
withheld it from the public for twenty years. It is much more probable
that it was lost before any one saw it who could appreciate its significance.
If the person who borrowed it in Stevenson's name had produced it during
those twenty years, it would not, as Grah am supposes, have settled
the Mecklenburg question. In his lecture before the N. Y. Historical
T H B
MERCURY;
CAPE -FEAR
*^**x*xx^^
(' } Y, Jw* 3- t 1775. ) NO.
The spurious Cape-Fear Mercury, Friday, June 3rd, 1775.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury " 53
Johnston. 30 June 1 775. Governor Martin. N 34
(Duplicate original not rec d .) R. Sept r 10 1775 (3
Inclosures) Ent d ." The manuscript copy of the
Mecklenburg resolves bears the indorsement : " In
Gov r Martin's of the 30 of June, 1775, N. 34." The
resolves do not agree verbatim with those in the
Charleston paper of June 13, 1775, or with those in
the New-Bern paper of June 16, 1775, and they are
not dated ; but there is no material difference
Society in 1852, Dr. Hawks, who was then the foremost advocate of the
Mecklenburg Declaration, said that Governor Martin's description of the
resolves in the Cape-Fear Mercury ', applied exactly to the May 3ist
resolves ; and in his address at Charlotte in 1857 he spoke of the publica-
tion of the resolves in Wilmington as an established fact. Governor Swain
wrote Bancroft, March 18, 1858, that it was then " conceded on all sides
that the Resolutions of the 31 May were the Resolutions published in the
Cape-Fear Mercury and transmitted by Gov. Martin to the English
government." In 1864, when the advocates of the document of May 2Oth
had begun to change their ground, Col. John H. Wheeler visited London
and learned from the memorandum on the back of Governor Martin's letter
that [the newspaper had been taken out for Mr. Stevenson. Up to that
time, as far as the writer has been able to ascertain, the literature of the
question fails to disclose a single intimation that there was ever a copy of
the Cape-Fear Mercury in the British archives. Colonel Wheeler treated
the loss of the paper as an unfortunate accident. It has remained for
more recent writers to assert that Jefferson's defenders destroyed the
evidence of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration. To confirm
their theories and to put upon the market a clever forgery, S. Millington
Miller contributed to Collier's for July i, 1905, a facsimile of what purported
to be a portion of an issue of the Cape-Fear Mercury for June 3, 1775, and
alleged that he had found the original among papers left by Andrew
Stevenson. This paper is here reproduced from a plate kindly furnished
by the Macmillan Company and the editor of the American Historical
Review. It was proved to be spurious by the friends as well as by the
opponents of the Mecklenburg Declaration. The evidence is fully presented
in the American Historical Review for April, 1906. See also the Columbia
(S. C.) State, July 30, 1905 ; The True Mecklenburg " Declaration of In-
dependence," by A. S. Salley, Jr. (Columbia S. C., 1905); the Charlotte
(N. C.) Daily Observer , Nov. 17, 1905, Jan. I, 12, 1906 ; and the Souvenir
Programme of the celebration of the I3ist anniversary of the Mecklenburg
Declaration (Charlotte, N. C., 1906), pp. 15-21.
54 The Mecklenburg Declaration
between the three copies. 1 Governor Martin's sec-
retary took little pains to make an accurate tran-
script of the resolves, as is shown by his egregious
errors, and the Cape-Fear Mercury was a badly-
printed newspaper. 2
Since only three inclosures, two of which are
now with his original letter, are referred to by
Governor Martin and noted in the indorsement ;
since he mentions only one newspaper, and only
one is known to have been removed from the
Public Record Office, it is clear that this newspaper
contained both the Mecklenburg resolves and the
reply to the Governor's proclamation made by the
committees of the Wilmington district on June
21, 1775. This newspaper was either the Cape-
Fear Mercury or the North-Carolina Gazette of
June 23d or June 3Oth, for the Mecklenburg re-
solves cannot be found in the Virginia Gazettes?
and the reply to the proclamation did not appear
in the Charleston papers until the first week in
July. The North-Carolina Gazette may be elimi-
nated, because the Mecklenburg resolves would
hardly have been printed both in the issue of June
1 A copy of this document from the original in the possession of the Earl
of Dartmouth will be found in the Appendix. Transcripts and informa-
tion concerning manuscripts in the Earl of Dartmouth's collection and in
the Public Record Office have been obtained from Messrs. B. F. Stevens &
Brown, of London, from B. F. Stevens's Calendar of the MSS. of the
Earl of Dartmouth {Historical MSS. Commission, i$th Report, Appendix,
Part X.), and from the Bancroft transcripts in the New York Public
Library.
a Thomas : History of Printing, ii, 365.
* The Virginia Gazettes were examined for the writer by the courtesy of
Mr. W. G. Stanard, of the Va. Hist. Soc.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury " 55
1 6th and in one of the two next issues, and because
Governor Martin was almost entirely cut off from
communication with New-Bern. It is most likely,
moreover, that the newspaper which Governor
Martin spoke of in his address at Fort Johnston
on June 25th was not the North- Carolina Gazette
of June 1 6th or the South Carolina Gazette ; And
Country Journal of June I3th, neither of which
contained the reply to his proclamation, but the
newspaper which he inclosed in his letter of June
3<Dth. As the Mecklenburg resolutions are known
to have been printed in the Cape-Fear Mercury,
we may be sure that it was done one week, rather
than two weeks, after they appeared in the New-Bern
paper. The evidence cited to show that the Cape-
Fear Mercury of Friday, June 23, 1775 (No. 261),
contained the reply of the Wilmington committee
to the Governor's proclamation, and the evidence
that the newspaper sent in Governor Martin's
letter to Lord Dartmouth could have been no
other, is conclusive.
Governor Martin's subsequent letters and public
papers show that, notwithstanding attempts to pre-
vent his adherents from communicating with him,
he was well informed of movements in all parts of
the province, but never heard of any other extraor-
dinary manifesto of Mecklenburg County than
that of May 31, 1775. If writers on the Meck-
lenburg Declaration had quoted all his statements
relative to the publication of the committee of
Mecklenburg, other evidence would not have been
necessary to identify it.
56 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Governor Martin's dispatch of June 3Oth was
not sent off until after July 6th, when he wrote
again to Lord Dartmouth, (Dispatch No. 35), and
said 1 : " I have engaged Mr. Alex'r Schawwhom I
now have the honor to introduce to your Lordship
to charge himself with this Letter and my Dispatch
No. 34." Dispatch No. 36, dated July i6th, con-
tains accounts received from Boston " since the
departure of Mr. Schaw," it reads, "who was
charged with my Dispatches to your Lordship No.
34 and 35, Duplicates of which are herewith in-
closed." 2 The manuscript copy of the Mecklenburg
resolves went to England, therefore, with these
latter dispatches. They were sent off onjuly2oth
with a letter of that date (No. 38) and another written
in the meantime, by a passenger in a merchant's
ship, 3 who delivered them as their indorsements
show, on September 10, 1775. Lord Dartmouth
wrote Governor Martin, September 15, 1775 : " I
have received from the hands of Mr. Burgwine your
dispatches numbered 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38, the first
two being duplicates, the originals of which you
mention to have been trusted to Mr. Schaw, who
has not yet appeared." 4
Alexander Schaw arrived in England in October,
I 775- The sole object of his going was to confer
with Lord Dartmouth, at the request of Governor
Martin and the president of the Council, upon the
1 Col. Rec. of N. C, x., 70.
* Ibid., x., 96.
8 Ibid., x., 98, 100, 108.
* Ibid., x., 247.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury" 57
plan of military operations intended for North
Carolina, which resulted in the battle of Moore's
Creek Bridge in February, 1776. Governor Martin
was to take personal charge of these operations,
and a numerous body of the Scotch Highlanders
of the province had engaged to join him. Schaw
stated that most of the inhabitants of Wilmington
were well affected. His long letters to Lord Dart-
mouth contain no mention of the Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence, and show that it
would certainly have been brought to the Gov-
ernor's notice if it was ever passed. 1
On July 18, 1775, a meeting of the Council was
held on board the sloop of war Cruizer, in the
Cape Fear River, which Governor Martin had
found to be a safer retreat than Fort Johnston.
The Council Journal reads 2 :
The Governor having informed the Board that he had
received advices that the People of the County of Bladen
were persuing the Example of the People of Mecklenburg,
whose treasonable proceedings he had communicated to the
Council at the last meeting [June 25th] desired the advice of
the Council on the measures expedient to be taken to counter-
act such unwarrantable and dangerous extravagancies and to
check and prevent the growth of that spirit of disorder which
at this time unhappily prevails in a great part of the Province
and especially in the County of Mecklenburg and the Counties
on the Sea Coasts, particularly evinced by the meetings which
have been held among the People for the choice of Military
Officers by which they have usurped the undoubted Pre-
rogative of the Crown, and the frequent Assemblings of the
1 Alexander Schaw to Lord Dartmouth, October 31 and November 8,
1775 ; Earl of Dartmouth's MSS.
9 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 106-107.
58 The Mecklenburg Declaration
People in Arms by the invitation of officers so illegally con-
stituted James Hasell [a member of the Council] is
of opinion that his Excellency should take every lawfull
measure in his power to suppress the unnatural Rebellion
now fomenting in Mecklenburg and other parts of the Pro-
vince in order to overturn the Constitution and His just
prerogative.
Governor Martin here speaks of the same
" treasonable proceedings " of Mecklenburg to
which he had called the attention of the Council
on June 25th. Neither the Governor nor the
Council had any idea that Mecklenburg County
formally declared independence nearly two months
before. They knew that Mecklenburg had de-
clared the constitution of the colony wholly sus-
pended, (which the Governor loosely called an
entire dissolution on another occasion,) and had
usurped the royal prerogative by electing their
own civil and military officers. Bladen County,
which followed the example of Mecklenburg,
has yet to set up a claim for having declared
independence.
On the i8th of August, 1775, the governor
issued a long and " fiery" proclamation from the
Cruizer* He states that he has seen in the Cape-
Fear Mercury the reply of the Wilmington com-
mittee to his proclamation of June i6th, which
characterized him, he says, as "an Enemy to the
Interests of this Province in particular and America
in General," and that he has "also seen a most
infamous publication in the Cape-Fear Mercury
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 141-151.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury" 59
importing to be resolves of a set of people stiling
themselves a Committee for the County of Meck-
lenburg most traitorously declaring the entire dis-
solution of the Laws, Government, and Constitution
of this country, and setting up a system of rule
and regulation repugnant to the Laws and sub-
versive of His Majesty's Government." Governor
Martin's language can be properly applied to noth-
ing less than a declaration of independence, but
he would never have written several descriptions
of the alleged declaration of May 2oth in which
neither the words " independence " or " allegiance "
are used. The paper to which the Governor re-
fers, moreover, concerns the laws, government, and
constitution of " this country," as does the paper of
May 3ist, while the supposititious declaration was
only a county affair. The Governor mentions pub-
lications in two other issues of the Cape-Fear
Mercury, and gives the dates; but he could not
give the date of the publication of either the Meck-
lenburg resolves or the reply to his proclamation.
He probably sent off in his letter of June 3oth his
only copy of the Cape-Fear Mercury of June 23d,
and forgot its date. Hence the duplicate letter,
enclosing the undated manuscript copy of the
Mecklenburg resolves, did not contain the reply
to the proclamation, although spoken of at length
in the letter.
Governor Martin's last reference to the Meck-
lenburg resolves is contained in his dispatch of
August 28, 1775 (No. 39), to the Earl of Dart-
60 The Mecklenburg Declaration
mouth. 1 It will be remembered that the manu-
script copy of the resolves was sent on July 2Oth
with a dispatch of that date (No. 38) and earlier
ones. The Governor writes that loyal subjects in
the interior have been prevented from communi-
cating with him.
All of them [he says] who have come down here to consult
me about their safety, have been intercepted coming or going,
and searched, detained, abused, and stript of any Papers they
have had about them except a Messenger from a considerable
Body of Germans, settled in the County of Mecklenburg, who
brought me a loyal declaration against the Very extraordinary
and traitorous resolves of the Committee of that County, of
which I had the honor to transmit a copy to your Lordship
with my last Dispatches.
Here we have a direct reference by Governor
Martin to the manuscript in his duplicate dispatch
of June 30, 1775, thus identifying with absolute
certainty the Mecklenburg resolves that he spoke
of in his letters, his addresses to the Council, and
his proclamation. We have also the strongest evi-
dence that the May 3ist resolves were not pre-
ceded by a declaration of independence, for the
Tories of Mecklenburg would not have drawn up a
protest against them, rather than against the de-
claration of eleven days earlier, in order to show
their loyalty. The messenger from Mecklenburg
told Governor Martin nothing about the earlier
declaration. The only conclusion consistent with
historical probability is that the paper remembered
in Mecklenburg as a declaration of independence,
1 Col. Rec. of N. C, x., 230-237.
The Lost " Cape-Fear Mercury" 61
as having been proclaimed before assembled thou-
sands at Charlotte in May, 1775, and as having
been widely known in the western part of North
Carolina, where Governor Martin's adherents were
most numerous, was the paper of May 31, 1775,
which the Governor, ignorant of an earlier mani-
festo of a like import, virtually called a declaration
of independence, and denounced as the most ex-
traordinary of "all the horrid and treasonable
publications that the inflammatory spirits of this
Continent have yet produced."
The May 3ist resolves were also dispatched to
England by the royal Governor James Wright, of
Georgia, who regarded them in much the same
light as did Governor Martin. In a letter to the
Earl of Dartmouth, written at Savannah, June 20,
1775, in which he enclosed a copy of the South-
Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal, of June
J 3> J 775> Gov. Wright said: "By the inclosed
Paper your Lordship will see the extraordinary
Resolves of the People in Charlotte Town Meck-
lenburg County ; and I should not be surprized if
the same should be done every where else." 1
Similar expressions from two men who stood high
in the ranks of North Carolina patriots are con-
firmatory. On June 18, 1775, Richard Cogdell,
chairman of the committee at New-Bern, transmitted
to Richard Caswell, then in attendance on the Con-
1 Transcript in the Bancroft Collection, N. Y. Pub. Lib. Bancroft noted :
*' This last Paragraph is in Wright's own hand writing : the former part of
the letter being written by a secretary or clerk." Bancroft found the letter
and newspaper in London in 1847, where they are still preserved in the
Public Record Office.
62 The Mecklenburg Declaration
tinental Congress, the copy of the North-Carolina
Gazette published in New-Bern on the 1 6th of the
month, which was recently unearthed. He wrote:
" you '1 observe the Mecklinburg resolves exceeds
all other Committees or the Congress itself. I send
you the paper wherein they are inserted. " Cog-
dell had heard of no action of Mecklenburg county
approaching a declaration of independence but
that of May 3ist. On the 27th of June Samuel
Johnston, who served as president of the Provincial
Congress two months later, wrote Joseph Hewes,
another North Carolina delegate at Philadelphia :
" Tom Polk, too, is raising a very pretty spirit in
the back country (see the newspapers). He has
gone a little farther than I would choose to have
gone, but perhaps no further than was necessary. " *
1 See Appendix.
CHAPTER V
CAPTAIN JACK'S MISSION TO PHILADELPHIA
THE most important circumstance mentioned by
Governor Martin in connection with the Meck-
lenburg resolves of May 31, 1775, stands out
prominently in the reminiscences of John McKnitt
Alexander, as being associated with the declaration
of independence of which he is sponsor. Governor
Martin wrote Lord Dartmouth on June 30, 1775,
with reference to the May 3ist resolves : " A copy
of these Resolves I am informed were sent off by
express to the Congress at Philadelphia as soon as
they were passed in the Committee." On the other
hand, John McKnitt Alexander states that the
paper of May 2oth was sent by express to the
Continental Congress, and nearly all who were
called upon to corroborate his statements testified
that the declaration of independence which they
recollected to have heard read in Charlotte on that
date, or about that date, was so dispatched.
Neither Governor Martin, nor John McKnitt
Alexander, nor the witnesses to the meeting at
Charlotte in May, 1775, sa Y tnat two series of
63
64 The Mecklenburg Declaration
resolutions, adopted eleven days apart, were sent ;
and it is admitted on all hands that only one man
rode express from Charlotte to Philadelphia as
bearer of resolves adopted in that month. Here
we have most striking proof that the story of
the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence be-
longs to the May 3ist resolves.
Captain James Jack, whom the aged witnesses
named as the bearer of the declaration of inde-
pendence, was solicited in 1819 to state what he
knew of the matter. Captain Jack was then in his
eighty-eighth year. He could not say with cer
tainty when the declaration was adopted, but had
recently seen newspaper articles on the subject.
He wrote as follows :
When the resolutions were finally agreed on, they were pub-
licly proclaimed from the court-house door in the town of
Charlotte, and received with every demonstration of joy by
the inhabitants.
I was then solicited to be the bearer of the proceedings to
Congress. I set out the following month, say June, and in
passing through Salisbury, the General Court was sitting at
the request of the court I handed a copy of the resolutions to
Col. Kennon, an Attorney, and they were read aloud in open
court. Major William Davidson, and Mr. Avery, an attorney,
called on me at my lodgings the evening after, and observed,
that they heard of but one person, (a Mr. Beard) but approved
of them.
I then proceeded on to Philadelphia, and delivered the
Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of May, 1775, to
Richard Caswell and William Hooper, the Delegates to Con-
gress from the State of North-Carolina.
Capt. Jack recalled but one series of resolutions.
He states in one place that he bore the "pro-
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 65
ceedings " to Congress, but they were the proceed-
ings of only one meeting. From the circumstances
attending his journey to Philadelphia it will be
seen that he could not possibly have carried a
declaration of independence of the 2oth of May,
1775. All contemporary testimony points to the
paper of May 3ist.
The only court held at Salisbury for a month or
more after May 20, 1775, was a court of oyer and
terminer for the Salisbury district, comprising
Mecklenburg, Rowan, and four neighboring coun-
ties, which sat from June ist to June 6th, 1775.
This was the " General Court " which was in ses-
sion when Captain Jack passed through Salisbury. 1
Salisbury was the county seat of Rowan, adjoining
Mecklenburg, and forty miles from Charlotte. The
significance of the fact that Captain Jack left Char-
lotte after May 31, 1775, and within six days after,
is palpable when we consider that Governor Martin
was informed that the May 3ist resolves were
sent to Philadelphia as soon as they were passed,
that the witnesses state that the resolves which
they had in mind were sent off a few days after
their adoption, and that no one tells us that Captain
Jack, an " express," tarried two weeks in Charlotte
before starting on his mission.
The papers carried by Captain Jack were of such
a nature that when publicly read in court at Salis-
bury during the first week in June, a court held
under the King's commission by men who took the
1 The minutes of the court are printed in the Col. Ree. of N. C. t x., 1-9.
Cf. Adam Brevard's narrative in Wheeler's Reminiscences of N. C., 242.
66 The Mecklenburg Declaration
oath, at the opening of court, for the qualification
of crown officers, 1 they met with unanimous ap-
proval ; of such a nature that, notwithstanding its
approval, the court continued to administer justice
in the King's name ; of such a nature that at a later
date staunch Whigs of Salisbury could conscien-
tiously take the oath for the qualification of public
officers and hold other courts there under the
King's commission 2 ; of such a nature, in fine, that
a large number of jurors who heard and approved
them could sincerely profess their ardent desire for
reconciliation with Great Britain a few weeks later
as members of committees of safety in neighboring
counties. 3 Here may be found a small part of the
"accumulation of miracles," as John Adams ex-
pressed it, which those who contend that Captain
Jack bore a declaration of independence when he
passed through Salisbury have never attempted to
explain away.
The time of Captain Jack's arrival in Philadelphia
is ascertained from a joint certificate given in 1830
by Alphonso Alexander, Amos Alexander, and
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander, who state that
they
frequently heard William S. Alexander, dec'd, say that he,
the said Wm. S. Alexander, was at Philadelphia on mercantile
business in the early part of the summer of 1775, say in June ;
and that on the day that Gen. Washington left Philadelphia
to take command of the Northern army, he, the said Wm. S.
1 Col. Rec. of N. C.,x., I.
9 Ibid., x., 139, 435
., x., 163, 228-229, 296-298, etc.
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 67
Alexander, met with Capt. James Jack, who informed him,
the said William S. Alexander, that he, the said James Jack,
was there as the agent or bearer of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence made in Charlotte on the twentieth day of May,
seventeen hundred and seventy-five, by the citizens of Meck-
lenburg, then including Cabarrus, with instructions to present
the same to the Delegates from North Carolina, and by them
to be laid before Congress, and which he said he had done.
General Washington left Philadelphia to take
command of the army before Boston on Friday,
June 23, 1775.' The papers that Captain Jack de-
livered on that day, or shortly before, to Caswell,
Hooper, and Hewes, the North Carolina delegates
in the Continental Congress, then in session, are
not mentioned in the journal of that body, because
of their character, or because, it is said, they were
not formally laid before it. Charles Thomson, the
secretary, had not yet perfected his method of
noting papers and reports coming to the Congress. 2
Captain Jack found the Continental Congress
aiming to act as dutiful subjects contending for their
political rights, avowing that in taking up arms the
colonies had no wish to dissolve the connection
which had so long and happily subsisted, they said, 3
with Great Britain, and sedulously and honestly
pursuing a policy of reconciliation. The Congress
expressed the feelings of Americans generally. In
1776, Washington wrote : " When I took command
of the army, I abhorred the idea of independence."
1 Pennsylvania Gazette June 28, 1775, and Rivingtorfs New York
Gazetteer \ June 29, 1775.
* Worthington C. Ford, in The Nation, Ixxxii, 475.
3 Journals of the Continental Congress , ii. (Ford ed.), 135, 138. Declaration
on taking up arms.
68 The Meckenburg Declaration
It may be safely said that not one member of
the Continental Congress would have approved
a declaration of independence by Mecklenburg
County. The few ardent spirits among its mem-
bers who favored independence, but dared not as
yet to openly advocate it, would have deplored the
hasty action of Mecklenburg as a premature step
towards independence which would invoke division
and ruin. But John McKnitt Alexander, the cus-
todian of the original records of the Mecklenburg
committee, tells us that on the return of Captain
Jack the committee "learned that their proceed-
ings were individually approved by the Members
of Congress [evidently the North Carolina mem-
bers], but it was deemed premature to lay them
before the House. A joint letter from said three
members of Congress was also received, com-
plimentary of the zeal in the common cause, and
recommending perseverance, order and energy."
It appears from the statements of others who were
present in Charlotte at that time that Captain Jack
returned answers "both from the President and our
Delegates in Congress, expressive of their entire
approbation of the course that had been adopted,
recommending a continuance in the same ; and
that the time would soon be, when the whole Con-
tinent would follow our example." Rev. Francis
Cummins, whose testimony is valuable because he
did not refresh his memory by a sight of the Alex-
ander narrative, states that Captain Jack "brought
back to the county the thanks of Congress for
their zeal, and the advice of Congress to be a little
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 69
more patient until Congress should take the mea-
sures thought to be best."
These messages to Mecklenburg are in keeping
only with the May 3ist resolves. In private let-
ters and in public papers Hooper, Hewes, and Cas-
well expressed their ardent desire for reconciliation
in terms which show plainly that they neither saw
nor approved a declaration of independence by
Mecklenburg county. Joseph Hewes wrote from
Philadelphia on July 8, I775, 1 to his friend James
Iredell in North Carolina, that the British ministry
"charge us with rebellion because we will not be-
lieve that they have a right to make laws to bind
us in all cases whatsoever. Strange that we should
be deemed rebels for an article of faith, after all
this, they add insult to injury and tell us we are all
poltroons and cowards." Hewes would no doubt
have thought it far stranger if the injurious charge
of rebellion was made on the ground that a large
number of his constituents had formally declared
independence of Great Britain, a proceeding which
is said to have elicited his commendation about
two weeks before the date of this letter. William
Hooper wrote Iredell from Philadelphia on Jan.
uary 6, I776 2 : "Yes, Britain, it is the criterion
of thy existence ; thy greatness totters. Luxury
1 McRee's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell^ i., 258.
* Ibid., i., 269. Compare this with Hooper's letter of April 26, 1774,
as printed in Jones's Defence of N. C., 312-315, in which he says that the
colonies " are striding fast to independence, and ere long will build an
empire upon the ruin of Great Britain ; will adopt its constitution purged of
its impurities," etc. His meaning, it appears from his subsequent letter,
was that " America must become the seat of empire," and that Britain should
" sink away in the arms of American sons."
70 The Mecklenburg Declaration
and wealth, with every vice in their train, are
hurrying thee down the precipice, and liberty,
shuddering at thy fate, in seeking an asylum
westward. Oh, heaven ! still check her approach-
ing ruin ; restore her to the affection of her Ameri-
can subjects. May she long flourish the guardian
of freedom, ..." In the Provincial Congress which
met at Hillsboro on August 20, 1775, Hooper drew
up an address to the inhabitants of Great Britain in
which he said 1 : " We have been told that Independ-
ence is our object ; that we seek to shake off all
connection with the parent State. Cruel sugges-
tion ! Do not all our professions, all our actions,
uniformly contradict this ? " Is it not " cruel," then,
to suggest that Mecklenburg county shook off all
political connection with the parent State a few
months before? In reply to a vote of thanks
by the same Provincial Congress for their pa-
triotic and faithful discharge of the trust reposed in
them as delegates to the Continental Congress,
Hooper, Caswell, and Hewes declared that they
had acted with " hearts warmed with a Zealous
love of Liberty, and desirous of reconciliation with
the parent State upon Terms just and Constitu-
tional." 2 Richard Caswell wrote a circular letter to
the town and county committees of North Caro-
lina, dated June 19, 1775, and signed by himself
and his two colleagues, in which he urged his con-
stituents to form themselves into militia companies
and to be in readiness to resist force by force. He
i Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 202 ; N. C. Booklet, July, 1905, v., 54.
* Col. Rec. ofN. C.,x., 189.
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 7 1
said in conclusion : " look to the reigning monarch
of Britain as your rightful and lawful sovereign ;
dare every danger and difficulty in support of his
person, crown, and dignity, and consider every man
as a Traitor to his King who infringing the Rights
of his American Subjects attempts to invade those
glorious Revolution principles which placed him on
the Throne and must preserve him there." 1 Dur-
ing the last week in June, 1775, Caswell sent copies
of this letter to the New-Bern Committee of Safety
for distribution in the eastern counties of North
Carolina, but copies for the western counties were
sent during the same week "by a man," said a mem-
ber of the New-Bern committee, "who was going
from Philadelphia to Mecklenburg county" 3 in
all probability Captain Jack. What advice to men
who had absolved themselves from all allegiance to
the British crown, from men who approved their
conduct !
If Captain Jack delivered a declaration of inde-
pendence to Hooper, Hewes, and Caswell, it is most
improbable that they would or could have con-
cealed the fact during the entire period of their
careers in Congress. Caswell served until July,
1775, Hooper, though absent during the debates on
independence, until 1777, and Hewes until Sep-
tember, 1776, and in 1779. Captain Jack, more-
over, was under no injunction of secrecy. His papers
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 23. Hewes wrote July 8, 1775, that Caswell
drafted the circular letter ibid., x., 85.
8 Ibid, x., 65, 66, 85. The arrival of the messenger at Salem, N. C., on
July 7th, is recorded in a historical sketch written in 1783 by an eye witness
and now among the archives of the Moravian church at Bethania, N. C.
See \b&Wachovia Moravian (Winston-Salem, N. C.), October, 1906.
72 The Mecklenburg Declaration
were publicly read at Salisbury, and he no doubt
revealed their nature to more than one man in
Philadelphia besides William S. Alexander. The
silence of the North Carolina delegates was enough
to convince the "Colossus of Independence," John
Adams, that the Mecklenburg resolutions of May
20, 1775, were spurious. Adams wrote a few
months after their first publication in 1819 *: "I was
on social, friendly terms with Caswell, Hooper,
and Hewes, every moment of their existence in
Congress; with Hooper, a Bostonian, and a son of
Harvard, intimate and familiar. Yet from neither
of the three did the slightest hint of these Mecklen-
burg resolutions ever escape. Is it possible that such
resolutions should have escaped the vigilant atten-
tion of the scrutinizing, penetrating minds of Patrick
Henry, R. H. Lee, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Gadsden,
Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Jay, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Samuel
Adams ? Haud credo. I cannot believe that they
were known to one member of Congress on the 4th
of July, 1 776." Adams said that he would " as easily
believe that a flaming Brand might be thrust into a
magazine of Powder without producing an Explo-
sion as that those Resolutions could have passed
in 1775 [and] had not been known to any Member of
Congress in 1 776." 2 "Armed with this bold exam-
ple," wrote Jefferson to Adams, 3 "would not you have
addressed our timid brethren in peals of thunder
on their tardy fears ? Would not every advocate of
1 Adams to William Bentley, August 21, 1819, Works, x., 383.
9 Adams to Jefferson, July 28, 1819, Jefferson MSS.
8 Jefferson to Adams, July 9, 1819, Writings (Ford ed.), x, 136-139.
' i : -
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 73 Z\
* '''. * i
independence have rung the glories of Mecklenburg
county, in North Carolina, in the ears of the doubt-
ing Dickinson and others, who hung so heavily on
us ? Yet the example of independent Mecklenburg
county, in North Carolina, was never once quoted."
Up to this point we have found that nearly every
known circumstance attending Captain Jack's jour-
ney from Charlotte to Philadelphia, the statements
of the North Carolina delegates in the Continental
Congress, and the testimony of Adams and Jefferson,
are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Captain
Jack carried a declaration of independence, and
that the proofs relied on to support that hypothesis,
considered in the light of contemporaneous testi-
mony, point to the paper of May 3ist as the " dec-
laration of independence" which he carried. Add-
ing to this the direct contemporaneous testimony of
Governor Martin that the May 3ist resolves were
sent to Philadelphia, we may conclude from these
facts alone that Captain Jack carried those resolves
and not the supposititious document of May 2oth.
The message of the North Carolina delegates to the
people of Mecklenburg county, complimenting them
upon their zeal in the common cause, but saying
that their resolves were premature to be laid before
Congress, and advising them, as Francis Cummins
says, to be a little more patient until Congress should
take the measures thought to be best, thus becomes
entirely in keeping with their known political
sentiments and with the political situation of the
American colonies in the summer of 1775. The
" prematureness " of the May 3 ist resolves and their
74 The Mecklenburg Declaration
important relation to the problem of providing a
temporary substitute for the lost authority of civil
government during the dispute with Great Britain,
a problem which engaged the thoughts of men in
many parts of America, have been overlooked or
underestimated. In every colony the forms of the
prostrate old government were respected; its officers
were recognized in their official capacity and per-
mitted to exercise more or less of their authority.
By openly approving the May 3ist resolves, the
Continental Congress was asked to declare that un-
der its direction the Provincial Congress of each
colony should assume the powers of government, and
that until " the legislative body of Great Britain re-
sign its unjust and arbitrary pretentions with re-
spect to America " no other legislative or executive
power did or could exist in any of the colonies.
Such a step in June, 1775, would have driven many
a sturdy patriot from the Continental Congress.
The Suffolk resolves, approved in September,
1 774, averred only that obedience should be refused
to specified oppressive and unconstitutional acts
of Parliament and to officials appointed by or
holding their places under those acts or other-
wise contrary to the directions of the charter
and laws of Massachusetts. 1 The case of Massa-
chusetts was a special one, growing out of acts
of Parliament altering the charter and laws of
the province. And yet the friends of the Meck-
lenburg Declaration, claiming for that document
the pre-eminence assigned to the May 3ist resolves
1 Journals of the Cont. Cong. (Forded.), i., 32-37.
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 75
by the horrified Governor of North Carolina, and
seemingly unaware that these resolves are probably
more strongly indicative of a conscious striving for
independence than any others of their date, and
that they presented for consideration to the Conti-
nental Congress a question which no other body of
men on the continent was competent to decide,
argue that if no other resolves were adopted in
Mecklenburg county in May, 1775, "there would
have been no reason for transmitting copies post-
haste to the Continental Congress, nor would the
Thirty-first Resolves, with their comparatively
tame resolutions, have elicited from the President
of Congress and the North Carolina delegates to
Congress the comments ascribed to them. "*
A few weeks before the arrival of Captain Jack
in Philadelphia (June 2, 1775), the Continental
Congress was called upon to face the very issue
that was brought up by the May 3ist resolves by
replying to an application of the Provincial Con-
gress of Massachusetts for " most explicit advice re-
specting the taking up and exercising the powers of
civil government." The patriots of Massachusetts
stated that they were denied the exercise of civil
government according to their charter, that they had
declined, though urged by the most pressing ne-
cessity, to take up the reins of civil government, as
the question equally affected the other colonies, and
that they were ready to submit to such a general
plan as Congress might propose to all, or would study
to form such a government as would promote not
1 North American Review ', July, 1905, 50.
76 The Mecklenburg Declaration
only their own advantage, but the union and inter-
est of all America. 1 The Continental Congress
decided this case on its special circumstances, avoid-
ing any recommendation that might be construed
to suggest that colonies abrogate authority under
the crown, and advised Massachusetts to proceed un-
der the charter and choose councillors to " exercise
the powers of Government, until a Governor, of his
Majesty's appointment, will consent to govern the
colony according to its charter." 2 Four months
later (October 18, 1775), New Hampshire, which
had no charter to fall back upon, and suffered from
the absence of authority, asked advice respecting
the administration of justice and the regulation of
"civil police." 3 The Congress hesitated. Another
request of this nature came from the proprietors of
Transylvania, who had purchased their lands in
what is now Tennessee and Kentucky from the
Cherokee Indians ; set up a government for them-
selves, acknowledging, however, " their allegiance
to their Sovereign, whose constitutional rights and
pre-eminence," they said, "they will support at the
risk of their lives " ; and sent an agent to Phila-
delphia with a memorial asking that he be admitted
to a seat in the Continental Congress as a delegate
from the new colony. The agent, James Hogg,
arrived in Philadelphia October 22, 1775, and two
days later had an interview with Samuel and John
Adams. Although no members of the Congress
Journals of the Cent. Cong.^ ii., 76-78.
* Ibid. , ii. , 83-84. Ibid. , iii. , 298.
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 77
were more decided on the question of independence,
the Adamses told Hogg : " We have petitioned and
addressed the King, and have entreated him to point
out some mode of accommodation. There seems to
be an impropriety in embarrassing our reconciliation
with anything new ; and the taking under our pro-
tection of a body of people who have acted in defi-
ance of the King's proclamations, will be looked on
as a confirmation of that independent spirit with
which we are daily reproached." 1
While the application of New Hampshire was
under consideration, news of the King's procla-
mation of August 23, 1775, for suppressing rebel-
lion and sedition, and his contemptuous refusal of
the second petition of the Continental Congress,
reached Philadelphia. On November 3d, three days
after the receipt of this intelligence and one week
after the application of New Hampshire was re-
ferred to a committee, it was recommended that the
Provincial Congress of New Hampshire " call a full
and free representation of the people, and establish
such a form of goverment, as, in their judgment, will
best produce the happiness of the people, and most
effectually secure peace and good order in the pro-
vince during the continuance of the present dispute
between G[reat] Britain and the colonies." On the
next day, the Congress gave the same advice to
South Carolina, and one month later to Virginia.
Not until the receipt of the news which, in the
words of Bancroft, caused "the daybreak of the
Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 258, 373. John Adams: Works, ii. f 430.
78 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Revolution," did the popular leaders resolve to aim
at independence, and the Continental Congress
take the step suggested by Mecklenburg, which was
now regarded by all as the first step toward inde-
pendence. 1 "During the course of my Life, and un-
til after the second Petition of Congress (in 1775),"
wrote John Jay, one of its members, in 1821, 4< I
never did hear any American, of any class, or of any
Description, express a wish for the Independence
of the colonies." 2
Not only were the Mecklenburg resolves of May
31, 1775, far in advance of political sentiment in the
colonies, and therefore not to be approved, but the
policy pursued by the Continental Congress in
June, 1775, suggested the propriety of giving them
as little publicity as possible. When Captain Jack
arrived in Philadelphia the second petition to the
King, the "Olive Branch," was being prepared.
This petition expressed a sincere attachment to the
person, family, and government of the King, and a
desire for reconciliation. 3 " Our Enemies charge
us with Sedition," said the address to the inhabit-
ants of Great Britain, adopted July 8, 1775.* "In
what does it consist ? In our Refusal to submit
to unwarrantable Acts of Injustice and Cruelty?
If so, shew us a Period in your History, in which
you have not been equally Seditious. We are ac-
cused of aiming at Independence ; but how is this
1 Frothingham : Rise of the Republic, 443-453 ; Journals of the Cont.
Cong., iii., 319, 326-327, 403-404.
N. E. Hist. &> Gen. Reg., xxx., 326.
1 Journals of the Cont. Cong., ii., 158-161.
</., ii., 1 66.
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 79
Accusation supported ? By the Allegations of your
Ministers, not by our Actions." The address to the
people of Ireland, reported by a committee consist-
ing of Duane, W. Livingston, and the two Adamses,
gravely averred 1 : " Though vilified as wanting in
spirit, we are determined to behave like men. Though
insulted and abused, we wish for reconciliation.
Though defamed as seditious, we are ready to obey
the laws. And, though charged with rebellion, will
cheerfully bleed in defence of our Sovereign in a
righteous cause. What more can we say ? What
more can we offer ? " The Mecklenburg resolves
were of a different spirit ; they bordered too near
on independence to comport with the sincerity and
truth of the professions of the Continental Con-
gress, and for the success of the petition to the
King. It is likely that the North Carolina delegates,
while approving the resolves in so far as they con-
cerned Mecklenburg county, thought that it would
be politic to keep out of the Philadelphia news-
papers which were the most influential in America
and probably the best known in England the fact
that the patriots of Mecklenburg regarded all Brit-
ish laws and commissions as annulled and vacated,
and the constitution of each colony suspended.
The delegates were no doubt informed by Captain
Jack that the resolves had been sent for publication
to Charleston and New-Bern, and knew that the
Philadelphia papers would speedily copy them.
Perhaps Captain Jack left the copy at New-Bern
when on his way to Philadelphia. He would have
1 Journals of the Cont. Cong., ii., 217.
8o The Mecklenburg Declaration
N V
lost little time thereby, and have saved some one a
long and laborious journey. At all events, the May
3ist resolves were suppressed in Philadelphia.
Six English and two German newspapers were
published in Philadelphia in the summer of 1775.
The German newspapers have not been found.
The three leading papers, all edited by stanch
Whigs, copied nearly all the matter printed from
original sources in the South-Carolina Gazette;
A nd Country Journal of June 13, 1775, and failed
to notice the Mecklenburg resolves printed therein.
Dunlafis Pennsylvania Packet ', or, the General Ad-
vertiser of July 3, 1775, prints under " South-Caro-
lina, June 6," the Association adopted by the Pro-
vincial Congress of South Carolina on June 3d,
and immediately afterwards, under "June 13," an
item of news concerning South Carolina militia
word for word as it appeared in the South-Carolina
Gazette; And Country Journal of June 13, 1775.
The dates of these items show that they were not
copied from the other South Carolina newspaper,
which was published weekly, and on June 2d, Qth,
and 1 6th, and that the issues of the South-Carolina
Gazette; And Country Journal of June 6th and
1 3th arrived in Philadelphia at the same time, prob-
ably by the regular packet from Charleston. The
Pennsylvania Gazette of July 5, 1775, prints the
Association under " Charles-Town, So. Ca., June
6," and under "June 13" the same item of South
Carolina news which was copied by the Packet ;
but the Gazette did not copy from the Packet, for
both the Association and the short item of news
Captain Jack's Mission to Philadelphia 81
are printed more nearly as they appear in the
South-Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal
than as they appear in the Packet. A supplement
of the Pennsylvania Journal; and the Weekly Ad-
vertiser, dated July 5, 1775, prints under " Charles-
Town (South Carolina), June 13," all the local
news in the South Carolina paper of June I3th,
only one short item of which was copied by the
Packet and Gazette. The other Charleston paper
contained some of the same news, but not in the
same words.
The three remaining Philadelphia newspapers
printed in English, the Ledger, Mercury, and Even-
ing Post, had been established only a few months,
and the little South Carolina news occasionally
printed was probably copied in great part from the
three leading papers of the city. No articles from
the South Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal
of June 6th or June I3th are to be found in any of
them except Story and Humphrey s's Pennsylvania
Mercury, and Universal Advertiser Q{ July 7, 1775,
which contains the Association as it appears in the
Gazette, from which paper it was probably copied. All
three of these papers supported the cause of the
country, but the printers of the Ledger and Evening
Post subsequently became Tories.
The failure of the Philadelphia papers to copy
the Mecklenburg resolves can be accounted for only
by the inference that the printers were requested
not to copy them. We have found no other news-
papers of this period which copied from the South-
Carolina Gazette; And Country Journal of June 6th
82 The Mecklenburg Declaration
or June I3th and did not copy the resolves which
surpassed "all the horrid and treasonable publications
that the inflammatory spirits of this Continent have
yet produced. " The resolves were copied into New
York, Boston, and probably other newspapers.
The New- York Journal ; or, the General Adver-
tiser vi]\mz. 29, 1775, conducted by John Holt, a
warm advocate of the cause of the colonies, copied
the Association and several items of local news from
the South-Carolina Gazette ; And Country Journal
of June 6th and June I3th, and the preamble and
first four Mecklenburg resolves, the balance being
summarized. Of the other two New York papers,
the New- York Gazette ; and the Weekly Mercury
of July 3d copied the Association and Charleston
news from the South- Carolina and American Ga-
zette of June Qth ; and Rivingtons New- York Gaz-
etteer ; or, the Connecticut, Hudson s River, New-
Jersey, and Quebec Weekly Advertiser printed no
South Carolina news whatever. The Massachusetts
Spy or American Oracle of Liberty of July 1 2, 1 775,
published in Worcester, also copied from the South
Carolina papers of June 6th and June I3th, and
printed the preamble and first four resolves of
Mecklenburg county. The preamble and first
four resolves contain their continental features the
" Declaration of Independence " while the others
concern only the internal government of Mecklen-
burg county. 1
1 Newspaper files of the N. Y. Public Library, library of the N. Y.
Historical Society, Library of Congress, and Boston Public Library.
CHAPTER VI
THE SALISBURY RECORDS.
IF Independence was proclaimed at Charlotte on
the 2oth of May, 1775, the news would have spread
like wildfire through the surrounding country. It
would have reached Salisbury, forty miles away,
within a day or two later. Salisbury was the county
seat of Rowan, and second only to Charlotte in
importance among towns of the western part of the
province ; and the inhabitants of Rowan, and partic-
ularly of the town of Salisbury, vied with those of
Mecklenburg in energetically supporting the cause
of the country. But on the ist of June, 1775, the
patriots of Rowan county, assembled in Salisbury
as the " Committee of the County of Rowan, " had
not heard that the adjacent county declared inde-
pendence twelve days before. On that day they
addressed a letter to the " Committee of the County
of Mecklenburg, " asking for an interchange of
the proceedings of the committees, and concluding
with these words 1 : " We beseech you likewise that
with us you would lift your Hearts in undissembled
prayers to the Disposer of all Events, that He
would by his providence interpose against the
Counsels of designing Men, that we may have our
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., u.
83
84 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Constitution as contained in the Magna Charta,
the charter of the forest, the Habeas Corpus Act
and the charter we brought over with us handed
down unsullied to posterity, and that under God the
present House of Hanover in legal succession may
be the Defender of it" This loyal exhortation could
not have been addressed to men who were known
to have formally and publicly absolved themselves
from allegiance to the Hanoverian king twelve
days earlier. On the ist of June the Rowan
Committee also drew up a statement in the name
of " his Majesty's Loyal subjects, the Committee
of the County of Rowan, " in which the committee
and the militia companies of the county avowed
that it was their duty " to defend the Succession^
of his present Majesty and the illustrious Hano-
verian line likewise the happy Constitution under
which we live, and that it is our Duty to Surrender
our lives before our Constitutional privileges to
any set of Men upon earth." 1 We are told that
after thus protesting their loyalty to the British
crown, although determined to resist an oppressive
ministry, the patriots of Rowan unanimously ap-
proved a formal declaration of independence within
a week later, when Captain Jack passed through
Salisbury !
While the Rowan committee knew nothing on the
ist of June, 1775, of a declaration of independence
publicly proclaimed forty miles away nearly two
weeks earlier, they were probably well aware that
an order had been issued for an important meeting
1 Col. Rec. of N. C. t x., 10-11.
The Salisbury Records 85
of the Mecklenburg committee on May 3ist. The
heading of the published document of May 31,
1775, states that the committee met on that day.
This knowledge, perhaps, or the arrival of some
one from Charlotte with news of unprecedented
doings there, was the occasion of the application to
the Mecklenburg committee for an account of its
proceedings. Let us change the story of May igih
and 2oth to May 3ist and June ist, and see well
how the movements of several actors in the story
and others warrant the change. Following the
Alexander narrative and the testimony of the wit-
nesses, we shall assume that the " delegates " were
in session until late in the night of May 3ist, at
which time the resolves were agreed upon, and
that the resolves were read from the court-house
steps in the afternoon, according to the testimony
of Humphrey Hunter, of the following day.
When the Salisbury district court met at Salis-
bury on the morning of the ist of June the sheriffs
of all the six counties in the district were pres-
ent except Thomas Harris, the sheriff of Meck-
lenburg, who was fined fifty pounds and ordered to
show cause for his absence at the next court. But
it was not because Mecklenburg county had de-
clared independence twelve days before that Harris
did not come. In the course of the day he arrived
in court, and returned his venire. The committee
meeting and militia muster at Charlotte the day
before probably detained him, and he set out for
Salisbury early on the ist of June and before the
resolves were publicly read. Hence he came to
86 The Mecklenburg Declaration
court ignorant of the fact that Mecklenburg had
resolved that the King's courts should no longer
administer justice for its inhabitants. The writ re-
turned by Harris shows that he had summoned for
jury duty Hezekiah Alexander, Adam Alexander,
John McKnitt Alexander, Robert Harris, John Mc-
Culloh, Charles Polk, and Aaron Houston. The first
three are reputed " signers " of the " Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence." Robert Harris has
been named in this relation, but his granddaughter
and her husband, who knew him personally, stated
that they never understood that he was one of the
famous delegates. 1 All of the Mecklenburg jurors
except Robert Harris and Charles Polk failed to
make their appearance and were fined three pounds
each. We may be sure that Harris and Polk
would not have heeded the summons of the sheriff
if Mecklenburg had declared independence on May
soth. That they, like the sheriff, did not know
what measures were adopted at Charlotte late in
the night before the opening of the court is in-
dicated by the fact that Charles Polk served on the
grand jury empanelled on June 2d. It was Polk's
father, according to the story of the iQth and 2Oth
of May, that read the resolutions from the steps of
the court-house in Charlotte, which circumstance
he would surely have known if it took place on the
alleged date. On June 6th, the last day of the
court, after Captain Jack's papers had been read
1 Sketch of Robert Harris in Graham's The Mecklenburg Declaration
of Independence, 132-134, copied from Lyman C. Draper's manuscript work
on the Mecklenburg Declaration, in the possession of the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin.
The Salisbury Records 87
by William Kennon at the instance of the presid-
ing judge, Alexander Martin, a stanch Whig, the
fine imposed upon the sheriff of Mecklenburg was
remitted. 1
1 The minutes of this court are printed in the Co/. Rec. of N. C. t X., 1-9.
CHAPTER VII
"AN ACCUMULATION OF MIRACLES "
THE acts and declarations of several of the re-
puted " signers " of the Mecklenburg Declaration
of Independence during the period from May 20,
1775, to July 4, 1776, form a very striking part of
the " accumulation of miracles " which confronts
the orthodox North Carolinian. William Kennon,
a lawyer of Salisbury, renowned for an eloquent
and effective speech before the meeting at Charlotte
on May 20, 1775, and as one of a committee of
three appointed to draft the declaration, resumed
the practice of his profession in the King's court at
Salisbury on June 2, 1775.* Waightstill Avery,
another who is said to have joined in the Declara-
tion of Independence on the 2oth of May, was
appointed " Attorney for the Crown," say the Salis-
bury court records, on August 2, I775- 2 Every
other participant at the famous meeting in Meck-
lenburg whose attitude toward Great Britain is
i Col. Rec. of N. C.i x., 5. Kennon was chairman of the Rowan com-
mittee at all of its meetings before that of June I, 1775. It seems that
through the influence of John Dunn, a Tory, he was not returned as a mem-
ber at the election of February, 1775. His ability probably procured him an
invitation to a seat in the meeting at Mecklenburg.
1 Ibid. x.. 139.
88
"An Accumulation of Miracles " 89
ascertained from contemporaneous records may
also be taxed with this infirmity of pu rpose.
It is very surprising that the records of the courts
held at Charlotte between May 20, 1775, and July
4, 1776, have been overlooked by writers who have
sought to prove that Mecklenburg county was then
severed from all political connection with Great
Britain. The justices of the county courts of
Mecklenburg during this period were Robert
Harris, Abraham Alexander, Robert Irwin, Richard
Barry, John Foard, Hezekiah Alexander, and Adam
Alexander, and they sat in July and October, 1775,
and in January, April, and July, 1776. Although
these men are all said to have formally absolved
themselves from allegiance to King George III.
on the 2Oth of May, 1775, the minutes and dockets
of their courts show that they administered justice
in the King's name. The criminal dockets are
uniformly marked " Crown Causes," and generally
signed by three or more of these alleged " signers "
of the Mecklenburg Declaration. The following
is extracted from the minutes of the court held so
late as July, 1776 :
Joshua Jennings being cited to appear before the court,
came and was bound in the sum of ^100. Henry Sadler his
surity bound in the sum of ^50, to be void on condition that
said Jennings keep the peace to all his Majesty's leige subjects
and particularly to John Shields.
Ordered by the court that the several dockets stand con-
tinued from July sessions to October sessions, with all rules
and orders thereon, viz : The tryal, execution, crown and
appearance dockets as they were at January sessions 1776.
Such entries upon the minutes and dockets of
90 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the courts of Mecklenburg were not discontinued
until after July, 1776. When the county court rose
in July the news of the passage of the Declaration
of Independence at Philadelphia on the 4th of the
month had not reached the justices, and they con-
sequently provided for the hearing of pleas of the
crown at the usual October session. That session
was never held, however, as by that time the jus-
tices had learned that they were no longer " his
Majesty's leige subjects." On the page in the
docket book in direct continuation from entries of
three " New Crown Causes to January session,
A. D. 1776" (meaning 1777), comes " State of
North Carolina Causes to July session, 1 777." The
promulgators of the Mecklenburg resolves of May
31, 1775, declared all royal authority to be sus-
pended, but not that their allegiance to the crown
was dissolved. 1
In the Provincial Congress which met at Hills-
boro August 20, 1775, Mecklenburg county was
represented by Thomas Polk, the prime mover of
the alleged declaration, John McKnitt Alexander,
John Phifer, Waightstill Avery, Samuel Martin,
and James Houston, all reputed " signers" except
the two last named. William Kennon took his
seat as a delegate from Rowan. On the first day
of its session the Congress appointed a committee
to prepare a "Test" to be signed by all members. 2
The facts concerning the records at Charlotte were obtained from Mr.
A. S. Salley, Jr., of Columbia, S. C., and from Prof. John Spencer
Bassett's report on North Carolina archives in the Annual Report of the
American Historical Association for 1894, 609-611.
8 Col. Rec. o/N. C, x., 169.
" An Accumulation of Miracle" 9 1
The " Test " was reported, approved, and signed on
August 23d. It ran as follows :
We the Subscribers professing our Allegiance to the King,
and acknowledging the Constitutional executive power of Gov-
ernment^ do solemnly profess, testifie and declare that we do
absolutely believe that neither the Parliament of Great Brit-
ain, nor any Member or Constituent Branch thereof, have a
right to impose Taxes upon these Colonies to regulate the in
ternal policy thereof ; and that all attempts by fraud or force
to establish and exercise such Claims and powers are viola-
tions of the peace and Security of the people and ought to be
resisted to the utmost; and that the people of this province,
singly and collectively, are bound by the Acts and resolutions of
the Continental and the Provincial Congresses, because in both
they are freely represented by persons chosen by themselves ;
and we do solemnly and sincerely promise and engage, under
the Sanction of virtue, Honor, and the Sacred love of Liberty
and our Country, to maintain and Support all and every the
Acts, Resolutions and Regulations, of the said Continental
and Provincial Congresses, to the utmost of our power and
abilities. In Testimony whereof, we have hereto set our
Hands this 23d August 1775.
To this 4< Test of Loyalty and Patriotism " the
five men who are said to have pledged their mutual
co-operation, their lives, their fortunes, and their
sacred honor, on May 2oth, to maintain a de-
claration of independence subscribed their names
on August 23d. 1
Thomas Polk and William Kennon were mem-
bers of a committee appointed by the Congress to
prepare a plan " for the Internal peace, order and
safety " of the province, 2 the report of which was
1 Col Rec. of N. C, x., 171-173. The original manuscript Journal
containing their signatures to the test is in the Boston Pub. Lib. The test is
here reproduced from it. 2 Tbid. % x, 175.
92 The Mecklenburg Declaration
considered and adopted September 10, 1775.* They
recommended that a Provincial Council, a Committee
of Safety in every district, and a committee in
every county be established, and that every member
of any of these bodies, every member of a future
Provincial Congress, and every person who voted
for members of any of these bodies should repeat
and subscribe the above test. Independent Meck-
lenburg county was not excepted. Wherever con-
temporaneous records are extant we find that the
test was actually subscribed. The Mecklenburg
member in the Committee of Safety for the Sal-
isbury district was Hezekiah Alexander, a puta-
tive " signer " of the Mecklenburg Declaration. 2
Waightstill Avery, as a member of the Provincial
Council, again subscribed the test on October 19,
1775, December 18, 1775, and February 28, 1776,
and John Phifer, John McKnitt Alexander, and
Robert Irwin, still another " signer," subscribed it in
the Provincial Congress as late as April 4, 1 776. 8
On September 4, 1775, the Congress declared,
after due consideration, that Franklin's plan for a
confederation of the colonies was " not at present
Eligible," and "That the present Association ought
to be further relied on for bringing about a recon-
ciliation with the parent State, and a further Con-
federacy ought only to be adopted in Case of the
last necessity." 4 The Articles of American As-
sociation, of October, 1774, had been and were still
being signed by all persons under penalty of being
1 Col. Xec. of N. C., x., 208-214. * Ibid., x., 215.
' Ibid., x., 284,349, 470, &Q2. 4 Ibid., x., 175, 192.
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 93
shut off from intercourse with those friendly to the
cause of the colonies. l The Congress resolved that
the new local committees that were to be formed
should superintend their observance. a These ar-
ticles acknowledged allegiance to the British
Crown, yet the following document shows that
they were signed in Mecklenburg, as in other parts
of the province, long after May, 1 775 :
NORTH CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, )
November 28, 1775. f
These may certify to all whom they may concern, that
the bearer hereof, William Henderson, is allowed here to
be a true friend to liberty, and signed the Association.
Certified by ABR'M ALEXANDER, Chairman
of the Committee of P. S.*
Here Abraham Alexander, who is said to have
been chairman of the meeting at which independ-
ence was declared in Mecklenburg on May 20,
1775, testifies over his own signature five months
later that one who professed to be a loyal subject
of George III. was " allowed " in Mecklenburg " to
be a true friend to liberty " !
On September 8, 1775, "Mr. [William] Hooper,"
reads the Journal of the Congress, 4 " laid before the
house an Address to the Inhabitants of the British
Empire ; and the same being read, was unanimously
1 Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 125, 297, etc. * Ibid., x., 171, 213.
8 State Pamphlet ; see Appendix. It may be noted here that the
" Instructions for the Delegates of Mecklenburg County" which are printed
under date of September i, 1775, in Foote's Sketchts of AT. C. t 70-73,
Wheeler's History of N. C., ii., 260-262, and the Col. Rec. of N. C., x.,
239-242, should bear the date of September I, 1776. D. L. Swain to B.
J. Lossing, Bancroft, MSS., N. Y. Pub. Lib. Swain had the original MS.
4 Col. Rec. of N. C, x., 201-202.
94 The Mecklenburg Declaration
received, . . . ' In this address, drafted by an
alleged supporter of the Mecklenburg Declaration
of Independence, five alleged authors of that
Declaration united with their associates in the
Provincial Congress in declaring :
To enjoy the Fruits of our own honest Industry ; to call
that our own which we earn with the labour of our hands and
the sweat of our Brows ; to regulate that internal policy by
which we and not they [the British ministers] are to be
affected ; these are the mighty Boons we ask. And Traitors,
Rebels, and every harsh appellation that Malice can dictate
or the Virulence of language express, are the returns which
we receive to the most humble Petitions and earnest sup-
plications. We have been told that Independence is our object;
that we seek to shake off all connection with the parent State.
Cruel Suggestion ! Do not all our professions, all our actions y
uniformly contradict this ?
We again declare, and we invoke that Almighty Being who
searches the Recesses of the human heart and knows our most
secret Intentions, that it is our most earnest wish and prayer to
be restored with the other United Colonies, to the State in
which we and they were placed before the year 1763, . . .
But the authors of the Mecklenburg resolves of
May 31, 1775, could consistently give their assent
to the address. The address continues :
Whenever we have departed from the Forms of the Con-
stitution, our own safety and self-preservation have dictated the
expedient ; ... As soon as the cause of our Fears and Ap-
prehensions are removed, with joy will we return these powers
to their regular channels ; and such Institutions formed from
mere necessity, shall end with that necessity that created
them. . . . This declaration we hold forth as a Testimony
of Loyalty to our Sovereign, and Affection to our parent
State, and as a sincere earnest of our present and future
intentions.
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 95
Dr. George W. Graham, the leading exponent
of the arguments for the authenticity of the Meck-
lenburg Declaration, would explain away some of
these inconsistent acts and declarations of its al-
leged authors by admitting the insincerity of their
professions. 1 He argues that signers of the Meck-
lenburg Declaration could consistently sign the
test adopted by the Hillsboro Congress, because,
" Saving the first two lines, probably thrown in for
the sake of the scrupulous or disaffected members
of the Provincial Congress, this test contains an
emphatic denial of all authority of Parliament over
the Colonies," and, " as the last paragraph of the
test, like the codicil to a will, annulled all conflict-
ing clauses, the delegates, as their proceedings
prove, considered themselves bound only by that."
Not by the greatest stretch of imagination can the
test be thus interpreted. It denies only the right
of a Parliament in which the colonies were not
represented (according to the American theory of
representation) " to impose taxes upon these colonies
to regulate the internal policy thereof " ; and it con-
tains nothing which conflicts with a profession of
allegiance to the King and an acknowledgment of
the constitutional executive power of his govern-
ment. Like the address to the inhabitants of
Great Britain, which elaborately defines the posi-
tion of the Hillsboro Congress, it enunciates the
great principle for which the colonies were con-
tending, and in contending for which, even when
forced to take up arms and to assume control of
1 The Mecklenburg Declaration, 63-79.
96 The Mecklenburg Declaration
civil affairs, the popular leaders considered the
British ministers, not themselves, to be disloyal
to the British Constitution. But, failing to take
into account the known sentiments which prompted
men outside of North Carolina to like actions,
Dr. Graham holds that the assembling of the
Hillsboro Congress in disobedience to a furious
proclamation of Governor Martin, its orders for
the enlistment of troops, and its adoption of other
measures " inimical," he says, " to the King and
Parliament," show that that body was composed
of men who had cast off their allegiance to the
King, in spite of their professions to the contrary,
and that it was therefore a proper place for
"signers" of the Mecklenburg Declaration. He
claims also that when the Hillsboro Congress
adopted its plan "for the internal peace, order
and safety" of the province, it entirely severed
North Carolina from the mother country. For
the same reasons, the American Tories, the British
Government, and the older British historians treated
the course of the Continental Congress as a piece
of dissimulation. But the sincerity of the pro-
fessions of the popular party may be tested by
statements of men of sterling integrity too nu-
merous and too familiar to be cited here. " When
the Barons at Runnymede, surrounded by their
armed retainers, wrested from King John the Great
Charter, they meant not to renounce their allegi-
ance, but simply to preserve the old government.
. . . So the popular leaders, in their attitude of
armed resistance, were loyal to what they conceived
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 97
to be essential to American liberty. " 1 We have
not to rely upon public professions of the
popular party in North Carolina to prove that
there, as in the other colonies, the idea of in-
dependence was of sudden growth ; that the old
affection for the mother country was not at once
effaced by civil war, and that reconciliation was
the aim of the Hillsboro Congress. The following
statements of men who had an intimate knowledge
of the affairs of the province are proof of all this,
and a new "accumulation of miracles" for the
advocates of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg
Declaration.
On July 31, 1775, two months after the alleged
promulgation of the Mecklenburg Declaration of In-
dependence, " a gentleman in North Carolina and
one of the Delegates of the Congress," apparently
Joseph Hewes, wrote in a private letter from
Edenton 2 :
We do not want to be independent ; we want no revolution,
unless a change of Ministry and measures would be deemed
such. We are loyal subjects to our present most gracious
Sovereign in support of whose crown and dignity we would
sacrifice our lives, and willingly launch out every shilling of
our property, he only defending our liberties. . . . We can vouch
for the loyalty of every one in this part of the province.
The writer was probably unwilling to vouch for
the loyalty of every one in the province because of
the independent spirit of the Mecklenburg resolves
of May 31, 1775. He certainly had not heard that
1 Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 438.
* Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 123.
7
98 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the leading county of western North Carolina had
formally declared independence.
On September 17, 1775, Thomas McKnight, a
lukewarm friend to the American cause, if not a
Tory, wrote 1 from his home in Belville, N. C, to
Samuel Johnston, President of the Hillsboro Con-
gress, which had risen a week previously, and
enclosed extracts from an intercepted letter of
John Adams to Joseph Warren.
Should you however believe the letter to be genuine, as I
firmly do [he wrote], it may incline you to examine the truth
of my suspicions, that there is, and has been from the be-
ginning of the dispute, a fixed design in some peoples breasts
to throw off every connection with G. [reat] B. [ritain] and to
act for the future as totally independant ; now however suit-
able this may be to the Northern provinces, I cannot think it
adapted to our circumstances but notwithstanding I am con-
vinced no such designs are harboured in this province ', I cannot
help thinking we are gradually and step by step drawn in to
second them as effectually as if we had been originally
concerned in the plan.
Here was a man of prominence in North
Carolina politics who had not heard as late as
September, 1775, that one person in the pro-
vince, much less a whole county, even desired
independence !
In a letter to Lord Dartmouth, dated October 16,
1775, Governor Josiah Martin expressed his pleasure
in seeing that there was " temper and moderation
enough" in the Hillsboro Congress to reject for
the present Franklin's plan of a confederation of
united colonies, and stated that this paper " like
1 Col. Rec. of N. C 1 ., x., 249-251.
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 99
many of the publications of the Continental Con-
gress has so much of the appearance of system and
breathes so strongly the spirit of independence that
with the best inclinations to construe the designs
of the Leaders of American Politics in the most
favorable and liberal manner it is difficult for the
most impartial and unprejudiced mind to believe
their uniform professions and declarations against
any views of that nature, it is nevertheless far from
me and my intentions to judge them. Heaven
knows what are the real views of them at large / "
Is it possible that Mecklenburg county declared
independence in May, 1775, and that the people of
the adjacent counties approved that declaration,
if, five months later, the royal governor of North
Carolina was ignorant of the views of the people of
the province on the subject of independence ? Gov-
ernor Martin said that the people seemed "generally
united on the points of opposition to Britain." *
As late as February n, 1776, after the idea of
independence had taken root in the colonies, Joseph
Hewes, one of the North Carolina delegates to the
Continental Congress, did not know whether his
constituents had yet given up hope of reconciliation
with the mother country. On that date he wrote
from Philadelphia to Samuel Johnston in North
Carolina, and sent as a "Curiosity" a copy of
Thomas Paine's Common Sense, advocating a separ-
ation from Great Britain, which had been published
in Philadelphia about a month before. He said that
he and his colleagues from North Carolina sent
1 Col. Rec. of N. C, x., 268-270.
ioo The Mecklenburg Declaration
no copies of the pamphlet by a wagon of military
supplies destined for the province because they
did not know how the people there " might relish
independency. " 1
James Iredell of Edenton, an associate justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States during
Washington's administration, was an eyewitness
of the course of events in North Carolina during
the Revolutionary period. His correspondence
was courted by the ablest men of the province, yet
it contains not a word of so important an event as
a declaration of independence by Mecklenburg
county. From an essay dated June, 1776, which is
believed to have had a very extended circulation
among prominent men of North Carolina, pas-
sing in manuscript from hand to hand, we ex-
tract the following testimony of Iredell 2 :
I avoid the unhappy subject of the day, independency. There
was a time very lately, within ray recollection, when neither
myself nor any person I know, could hear the name but with
horror. I know it is a favorite argument against us, and that
on which the proceedings of Parliament are most plausibly
founded, that this has been our aim since the beginning, and
all other attempts were a cloak and disguise to this principal
one. If this supposition had been well founded, and a desire
of redressing the grievances we complained of been entertained
by government, they might immediately, by granting these,
have detected and disappointed the other, or covered us with
eternal disgrace, if we avowed it. But it is sufficient to say,
our professions have been all solemnly to the contrary ; we
have never taken any one step which really indicated such a view; '
Col. Rec. ofN. C., x., 447
* McRee's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, i, 321322.
8 The italics are the present author's.
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 101
its suggestion has no better foundation than mere suspicion,
which might countenance any falsehood whatever, and every
man in America knows that this is one of the most egregious
falsehoods ever any people were duped with.
In another manuscript pamphlet, addressed to
the King of Great Britain, bearing date, March, 1777,
Iredell again replied to the above charge as follows: *
I do aver the charge to be false, and dare appeal to the great
Searcher of all hearts for the truth of my present declaration.
I have resided many years in America ; I have had the honor
of a personal intimacy with several of the most considerable
characters, and firmest patriots in it ; I have had many interest-
ing and confidential conversations with them upon this great
and affecting subject. I know well the general sentiments of
the people at large. When this unhappy controversy first be-
gan, and until very near the time when the arbitrary obstinacy of
your conduct left us no other alternative than indefinite submission a
to your will, or unreserved resistance to your power, I never
heard a man speak on the subject of independence, who did not
speak of it with aborrence and indignation, and place the hope
of all his felicity in a happy and honorable reconcilation with
Great Britain.
This completes our study of the Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence in the light of con-
temporaneous testimony. We have learned that
researches during a period of nearly a century have
failed to produce a single item of contemporaneous
evidence of so remarkable an event as a declaration
of independence by Mecklenburg county on the
2Oth of May, 1775. Voluminous contemporaneous
records are not merely silent concerning it; they
tell us that for several months after the date on
* McRee's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, i, 344.
* This passage is not italicised in the original.
102 The Mecklenburg Declaration
which the declaration is alleged to have been pro-
claimed, amid the joyous shouts of assembled
thousands, there was not even a conscious striv-
ing for independence perceptible in North Carolina.
The statements of the royal governor, Josiah Mar-
tin, and of other well-informed men, prove that
they knew nothing of the supposed declaration of
independence. The subsequent acts and declara-
tions of reputed authors and supporters of the
declaration are inconsistent with it, and if the
document be authentic, they fix an ineffaceable
stigma to their characters. Our investigations
have also revealed the fact that a document similar
in many of its terms to the document of May 20,
1775, and easily mistaken for a declaration of in-
dependence, was adopted in Mecklenburg county
on May 3 1, 1775. This document is entirely incon-
sistent with the declaration of eleven days earlier.
It was published in every city in the Carolinas
where there were newspapers, copied into New
York and Boston newspapers, and suppressed in
Philadelphia, because it was " premature," Gover-
nor Martin virtually called it a declaration of inde-
pendence. Our researches have shown that the
most significant facts and circumstances in the
story of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Indepen-
dence are peculiar to the May 3ist resolves, and
that all the evidence which is cited in support
of the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declara-
tion should therefore be understood as relating to
the May 3ist resolves. At every step in our ex-
amination of contemporaneous testimony we have
" An Accumulation of Miracles " 103
found it to conflict with the testimony of those who
say, on the strength of memory, hearsay, or as-
sumption, that Mecklenburg county declared inde-
pendence on the 20th of May, 1775.
CHAPTER VIII
ORIGIN OF THE MYTH
HOWEVER manifest may be the inconsistency of a
declaration of independence by the people of Meck-
lenburg county on the 2Oth of May, 1775, with their
resolves of May 31, 1775, and contemporaneous
testimony, the time-honored and patriotic belief in
the event that prevails in North Carolina will never
be entirely dispelled until the common error of
many men in believing that they heard a declaration
of independence read at Charlotte in 1775 is more
satisfactorily explained, and the existence of sev-
eral documents purporting to contain the text of
that declaration, which are very unlike the docu-
ment which we affirm to be their prototype, is
accounted for. An attempt will be made to trace
the origin and genesis of the erroneous belief that
the Mecklenburg resolves of May 31, 1775, consti-
tuted a declaration of independence ; to show that
a quarter century after their promulgation a mem-
ber of the body that adopted them endeavored to
recall their date and salient features ; and that from
the rough notes he jotted down sprang every
version of the supposititious paper of May 2oth.
104
Origin of the Myth 105
The nature of the May 3ist resolves and their
relation to the political situation in the colonies at
the time of their adoption have been treated. All
British authority and forms of government were
declared to be suspended, and a county govern-
ment set up until another should be provided by
the Provincial or Continental Congresses, or until
Great Britain should abandon her arbitrary policy
towards the colonies. It was ordained that officers
appointed under the resolves should hold and exer-
cise their authority by virtue of popular choice and
"independent of the crown of Great Britain and
former constitution of this province," and that
whatever person should thereafter receive a com-
mission from the crown, or attempt to exercise any
such commission theretofore received, should be
deemed " an enemy to his country," and summarily
dealt with. This was in some degree a declaration
of independence what might be termed a declara-
tion of temporary independence. No profession of
allegiance or the slightest indication of a desire for
reconciliation with the mother country, which ap-
pear in nearly all other contemporaneous papers of
its kind, are to be found in the Mecklenburg mani-
festo ; and the clause implying a possibility of a
future adjustment of political relations is itself an
opprobrious affront to British authority. So inde-
pendent in spirit are these resolves that from the
time when Peter Force announced their discovery,
in 1838, to the present day, they have, after due
consideration, been repeatedly called a declaration
of independence. Peter Force describes them as
io6 The Mecklenburg Declaration
" a general Declaration of Independence of all the
Colonies." 1 William H. Foote says, in \\\s Sketches
of North, Carolina, that in the May 3ist resolves
" independence is asserted in language as strong as
in the paper of the 2Oth." 2 Foote devotes a large
portion of his volume to the Mecklenburg Declara-
tion. An article in the New York Times of Feb-
ruary 2, 1853, signed " North Carolina," which
evinces a familiarity with the question under discus-
sion, takes this view of the matter : " That the
patriots of Mecklenburg did make a formal Decla-
ration of Independence in May, 1775, no fair man
can doubt. The only question is, was it done by
the paper of the 2Oth of May or by that of the
30th?" Benson J. Lossing prints the May 3ist
resolves in his Pictorial Field Book of the Revolu-
tion as the " Mecklenburg Declaration of Independ-
ence." 3 After a review of the evidence cited in
support of the paper of May 2Oth, he concludes
that its genuineness is " a question of minor his-
torical importance, since the great fact is established
beyond cavil, that more than a year previous to
the promulgation of the Federal Declaration the
people of Mecklenburg declared their entire inde-
pendence of the British crown, and, in pursuance of
that declaration, organized a civil government."
John H. Wheeler, the North Carolina historian,
whose writings on the mooted question cover a
period of forty years, said in one of his last con-
1 Daily National Intelligencer, December 18, 1838.
2 Sketches ofN. C. (1846), 208.
8 1852 ed. f ii, 617-623.
Origin of the Myth 107
tributions to the history of the subject : 1 " Both
without doubt were passed. Either settles the fact
that the people of Mecklenburg boldly pronounced
their independence in advance of any other State,
and more than a year in advance of the United
States." A recent history of Mecklenburg county
claims that some writers " have not noted the fact
that the Declaration of May 20 declared the inde-
pendence of Mecklenburg county, and that the Re-
solves of May 31 proclaimed the independence of
the United Colonies." 2 One of the best histories
of North Carolina says 3 : " The substance of the
whole controversy touching the authenticity of the
Mecklenburg Declaration is then, after all, at best
but frivolous. If they did not renounce the King
and his agents on May 2oth, they certainly did on
the 3 1 st." Romulus M. Saunders, a diligent inves-
tigator, came to the same conclusion. " Such, too,"
he wrote in 1852,* "is the opinion of an eminent
American author, Jared Sparks, who says he 'does
not consider the point (as to the authenticity of the
resolutions of the 2oth May,) as of much importance,
as the last resolves (3ist May) do not differ much
in substance and spirit from the other paper.' '
George Ban croft describes the circumstances attend-
ing the adoption of the May 3ist resolves, apply-
ing the story of the igth and 2oth of May to those
1 Our Living and Our Dead, i., 426 (January, 1875).
9 D. A. Tompkins : History of Mecklenburg County and the City of
Charlotte from 1740 to fgoj, ii., 8.
*J. W. Moore: History of N. C., i., 189-190.
4 Address delivered before the two literary societies of Wake Forest College,
June 0, 1852, by Hon. fiomulus M. Saunders, 28-29.
io8 The Mecklenburg Declaration
resolves, and says, 1 " Thus was Mecklenburg county
in North Carolina separated from the British Em-
pire, . . ." One of the most striking illustra-
tions of misapprehension as to the import of the
May 3ist resolves is afforded by the action of
public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia, who pub-
lished them in a handsomely-printed broadside in
1875, i n commemoration of the centennial anniver-
sary of their adoption, as " The First Declaration of
American Independence." 2 So independent inspirit
are these resolves that the advocates of the document
of May 2oth have long contended that they might
well have followed a declaration of independence.
We have seen that the Mecklenburg resolves of
May 3ist, 1775, anticipated the advice of the Con-
tinental Congress to New Hampshire (November
3, 1775), South Carolina (November 4, 1775), and
Virginia (December 4, 1775), to form temporary
local governments. Some idea of how Mecklen-
burgers regarded their precursive step during the
thirteen months before July 4, 1776, may be in-
ferred from public opinion concerning this advice
at the time it was given. In each instance Congress
recommended only that these colonies " establish
such a form of government as, in their judgment,
will best produce the happiness of the people, and
most effectually secure peace and good order in the
province, during the continuance of the present dis-
pute between Great Britain and the colonies? 3 But
1 History of the U. S. t vii., 371.
" X " (Prof. Charles Phillips) in the N. Y. Evening Post, May 19, 1875.
* Journals of the Continental Congress, Hi., 319, 326, 403.
Origin of the Myth 109
the formation of local governments was looked upon
by Whigs and Tories as equivalent to revolution and
a step towards a declaration of independence. 1 It
roused into activity the opponents of independence.
Shortly after it was given the assemblies of Penn-
sylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and
Delaware instructed their delegates in the Con-
tinental Congress to oppose independence. " We
strictly enjoin you," said the Pennsylvania Assembly
(November 9, 1775), "that you, in behalf of this
colony, dissent from and utterly reject any proposi-
tions, should such be made, that may cause or lead
to a separation from our mother country or a change
of the form of this government." The N ew J ersey
Assembly used nearly the same language, including
the phrase respecting a change in the form of the
government of the colony. 2 When the advice to
form a temporary local government reached New
Hampshire, it was inferred that the Continental
Congress was in favor of independence, and the
delegates from the town of Portsmouth to the Pro-
vincial Congress of New Hampshire were instructed
by their constituents to oppose the formation of a
local government on the ground that it would fur-
nish their enemies " with arguments to persuade
the good people there that we are aiming at in-
dependency, which we totally disavow." 3 In the
Provincial Congress of South Carolina, William
Henry Drayton, the president, spoke of the recom-
1 Frothingham : Rise of the Republic ; 448.
8 Ibid., 465-467.
*., 467,493.
no The Mecklenburg Declaration
mendation of the Continental Congress as " per-
mission granted to colonies to erect forms of gov-
ernment independent of and in opposition to the
regal authority." Of the action of South Carolina
on this recommendation, David Ramsay, an eye-
witness, wrote : " The formation of an independent
constitution had so much the appearance of an
eternal separation from a country by a reconcilia-
tion with which many yet hoped for a return of
ancient happiness, that a great part of the Provin-
cial Congress opposed the measure. The Act of
Parliament of December 21, throwing the colonies
out of protection, turned the scale." * In Virginia
also the advice of Congress in December, 1 775, to
form a government was regarded as being in
the direction of independence, if not independence
itself, and was not immediately acted upon. 2
Since intelligent critics of our own day, with the
document itself before them, have interpreted the
May 3ist resolves as a declaration of independence ;
since all concede that it was such in effect, and
since the position it took was regarded elsewhere
in 1775 as equivalent to independence, it is easily
understood how the people of Mecklenburg could
believe, after the colonies had formally renounced
allegiance to the British crown, that they had been
the first to take that step. They recalled the great
fact that they had been first to cut loose from
dependence on the mother country, and not the
form of the instrument by which it was done.
1 Frothingham : Rise of the Republic, 494.
., 508.
Origin of the Myth 1 1 1
From the moment that they declared that "the
Provincial Congress of each province, under the
direction of the Great Continental Congress, is in-
vested with all legislative and executive powers
within their respective provinces; and that no
other legislative or executive power does, or can
exist, at this time, in any of these colonies," British
law and authority ceased forever in Mecklenburg
county. The result was the same as if absolute
independence had been declared. It would, indeed,
have been remarkable if many men in Mecklenburg
who were not particular in the use of terms, in-
cluding some members of the committee that
adopted them, did not come to call the May 3ist
resolves a declaration of independence. The pro-
visional character of the document is indicated by
little more than a brief resolution in a series of
twenty, and nearly all of the aged witnesses who
testified in later years that it was a declaration of
independence heard it read but once, from the steps
of the court-house. If Governor Martin, like the
writers of later days, failed to note their provisional
character in 1775, we may be sure that many men
of less critical acumen in Mecklenburg failed to
remember it after July 4, 1776. Governor Martin's
public denunciation of the resolves as "most traitor-
ously declaring the entire dissolution of the laws,
government, and constitution of this country, and
setting up a system of rule and regulation repug-
nant to the laws and subversive of his Majesty's
government," was sufficient in itself to promote
popular misapprehension. Another potent source
ii2 The Mecklenburg Declaration
of error was the knowledge that the resolves had
been too far in advance of public sentiment to re-
ceive the sanction of the Continental Congress, a
fact which was remembered years afterwards by
men who forgot nearly all other details ; for many
survivors of Revolutionary days erroneously be-
lieved in later years as even John Adams, it would
seem, believed in 1819 that "the genuine sense
of America" was for independence as early as
May, 1775. Finally there entered the elements of
local pride and patriotism to magnify the great
event of 1775.
In view of these facts, we may reasonably pre-
sume that after July 4, 1776, the May 3ist resolves
were loosely called a declaration of independence
by many persons, and that in the course of time, as
their phraseology and terms were forgotten, and
the number of their surviving authors diminished,
they were looked back upon in Mecklenburg county
generally, and to some extent in the surrounding
section of country, as a formal declaration of inde-
pendence. In the light of our study of the records
of 1775 in their relation to the May 3ist resolves,
and to the story of the " Mecklenburg Declaration
of Independence," this supposition becomes a cer-
tainty. But demonstration of the genesis of the
myth is asked for. This may now be attained in
some degree with the aid of several items of evi-
dence dating from 1777 and onward, which the
friends of the declaration of May 20, 1775, have
lately unearthed, and which contain what they re-
gard as explicit references to that document. In
Origin of the Myth 113
the absence of such records, it has heretofore been
argued with much force that the Mecklenburg
Declaration was never heard of prior to its publi-
cation in 1819, which precipitated the century-old
dispute. The newly-found evidence establishes
the fact that, as early as 1 783, at least, persons in
Mecklenburg county and the vicinity believed that
independence was declared at Charlotte in 1775;
but, standing by itself, it gives little or no help in
determining the identity of the declaration referred
to. It is a part of our duty to show only that if
these records be genuine and refer to one of the
manifestoes in question, the references would as
easily or more aptly apply to the May 3ist resolves
as to the alleged declaration of independence.
The earliest indication of a declaration of inde-
pendence by Mecklenburg county is contained in a
poem which is said to have been written in 1777
by Adam Brevard, a brother of Ephraim Brevard,
the reputed author of the document of May 20, 1775.
The original manuscript is said to have been once
in the possession of David L. Swain, of North
Carolina, who wrote to George Bancroft, March 18,
1858, as follows: 1
" There is no document which fixes with certainty
the date of the first meeting in Mecklenburg, nor
with the exception of a series of doggerel verses,
which have recently come into my possession, is
there any paper containing a a \_stc\ direct refer-
ence to the subject, which I suppose to be of earlier
date than Sept. 1800. . . . The poem to which I
1 From the original letter in the Bancroft MSS., N. Y. Public Library.
ii4 The Mecklenburg Declaration
refer above, bears date 18 March 1777, extends
through 260 lines, and is of unquestionable authen-
ticity. It opens as follows :
4 THE MECKLENBURG CENSOR
'When Mecklenburgs fantastic rabble
Renowned for censure, scold and gabble
In Charlotte met in giddy council
To lay the Constitutions ground-sill
By choosing men both learned and wise
Who clearly could with half shut eyes
See mill-stones through or spy a plot
Whether existed such or not
Who always could at noon define
Whether the sun or moon did shine
And by philosophy tell whether
It was dark or sunny weather
And sometimes when their wits were nice
Could well distinguish men from mice
First to withdraw from British trust
In Congress they the very first
Their independence they declared.'
This paper was lost, we believe, when Governor
Swain's collections were scattered after his death
in 1868. We have found no further mention of it
in his correspondence and nothing which justifies
the belief that he ever had the original poem or a
genuine copy of it in his possession. The researches
of Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., secretary of the Histor-
ical Commission of South Carolina, have brought
to light what would seem to be conclusive evidence
that the last three lines of the passage quoted above,
which refer to a declaration of independence, did
not belong to the original poem, but were fraud-
ulently added by some early advocate of the au-
thenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration. In an
Origin of the Myth 115
article contributed to the Charleston Sunday News
of April, 22, 1906, Mr. Salley reproduced from a
manuscript which he found in the Charleston
Library an apparently full copy of the poem and an
explanatory preface by " The Editor," dated March
30, 1777, with which it was first published. This
copy was transcribed and annotated in 1777, by a
resident of Mecklenburg county, of which fact the
annotations bear indisputable internal evidence. It
is entitled, " A Modern Poem by The Mecklenburg
Censor, Published A. D. 1777," and has 246 lines.
The first fourteen lines differ from the Swain copy,
in several particulars of verbiage, and the poem
does not contain the three all-important lines which
appear next in order in the Swain copy, or anything
that can be construed to have reference to events
of May, 1775. The poem itself and the contempo-
raneous introduction and footnotes, both of which
evince an intimate knowledge of men and events
in Mecklenburg county referred to by "The Censor,"
show that the whole semi-satirical piece dealt with
an election which took place at Charlotte in No-
vember, 1776, and that the three lines in question
do not consist with the accompanying text. 1
Whether or not the poem written by the " Meck-
lenburg Censor," in 1777, did make the statement
1 The lines of the poem unearthed by Mr. Salley which immediately
follow the fourteenth line of the Swain copy are :
(i) " Squire Subtle then to Sulky came,
(a) Sulky a lawyer mean in fame.
' Sulky,' he said, 'my friend, pray hear,
* I Ve things important for your ear.
* D 'y e mark yon silly rabble rout ?
n6 The Mecklenburg Declaration
that independence was declared in Mecklenburg
county, it could not invalidate our contention that all
such evidence should be understood as relating to
the resolves of May 31, 1775. There is nothing in
the passage quoted by Governor Swain to show that
it had reference to the alleged declaration of May
20, 1775, and not the May 3ist resolves. But we
do not believe that the myth of the " Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence " gained so strong a
foothold as early as 1777 as to be rendered into
verse by the brother of the author of the May 3ist
resolves.
Into the assembly now they rush'd,
With glowing hopes sublimely flush'd,
Where Subtle thus harangued the crowd, "
"The Mecklenburg Censor" describes the course pursued by Squire
Subtle (Hezekiah Alexander) and Sulky (Waightstill Avery), aided by
Quirk (John McKnitt Alexander), to gain election to the Provincial Congress
by the " fantastic rabble " assembled in Charlotte, and concludes with advice
to his countrymen to choose better representatives. The footnotes are a key
to the characters and the action of the piece, and refer to the election as
having taken place "last November." "The Editor "say sin his introduction,
which is dated March 30, 1777, and addressed "To Electors of Mecklenburg,"
that the poem " came some time ago by accident " into his hands. "The
Censor," he says, "ridicules the confused and unthinking conduct of the
freemen of Mecklenburg at the election held last November with a severity
that I thought unjustifiable, until I saw that the same spirit of insipid indif-
ference prevailed at our last election, held the loth day of March." The
poem was therefore in his hands before March 10, 1777, and the Swain copy,
if its accredited date (March 18, 1777) be correct, could not have been the
original. It is likely that the Swain paper was prepared (by a man of
Swain's time) from the published poem of 246 lines bearing the date of
March 30, 1777, and that Swain, when writing to Bancroft on March 18,
1858, inadvertently dated the passage which he quoted March 18, 1777,
and roughly calculated the number of lines in the piece to be 260. He
called his letter a " very hasty and almost illegible communication." " The
Editor" of " A Modern Poem" goes onto say that " The Censor" also dis-
approves of the men chosen to represent Mecklenburg in the General
Assembly, and that the "very particular instructions" given them, "by which
Origin of the Myth
What is considered by the Mecklenburg claim-
ants to be one of the most valuable pieces of evi-
dence of the supposed declaration of independence
was discovered in September, 1904, by Mr. O. J.
Lehman, of Bethania, N. C. Among the archives
of the Moravian church at that place which con-
tain carefully-kept records written in German script
by the most learned men of the Moravian Brother-
hood, covering the period from 1755 to the present
day Mr. Lehman came across a manuscript of
forty pages, in pamphlet form, bearing on its cover
the title :
" Bruchstueck, | Aufsaz von den Vorkommenhei-
ten | waehrend dem Revolutions-Kriege | welche
einen Bezug | auf die Wachau | hatten | bis Ende
1779."
our Representatives must abide or do nothing," indicate that the electors
themselves disapproved of their choice. From these remarks and from the
persons mentioned in the poem as having been elected by the " giddy
council," it is clearly evident that the election of November, 1776, which
is ridiculed, took place immediately before the instructions to the delegates
from Mecklenburg to the Provincial Congress of November, 1776, which
are printed in the Colonial Records of N. C. (vol. x., p. 870 a), were agreed
to "At a general Conference of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg assembled
at the Court-house on the first of November, 1776, for the express purpose
of drawing up instructions for the present Representatives in Congress."
This paper begins: " You are chosen by the inhabitants of this county to
serve them in Congress or General Assembly for one year and they have
agreed to the following Instructions which you are to observe with the strict-
est regard." The instructions contain an elaborate outline of a Constitu-
tion and Bill of Rights for the new state of North Carolina. We conclude,
therefore, that " When Mecklenburg's fantastic rabble" met at Charlotte,
" To lay the Constitution's ground-sill,
By choosing men most learn'd and wise,"
they assembled to choose delegates to the Provincial Congress which met at
Halifax, November 12, 1776, and formed the Constitution of North.
n8 The Mecklenburg Declaration
This English translation is : " Fragment, Record
of the events during the Revolutionary War which
had a reference to Wachovia to the end of 1779."
This historical sketch opens with the events of
the year 1775, and the chronicle for that year closes
with the following passage :
Ich kan zu Ende des i n$sten Jahres nicht unangemerkt
lassen, dasz schon im Sommer selbigen Jahres, dasz ist im May,
Juny, oder July, die County Mecklenburg in Nord Carolina
Carolina, and to draw up instructions for those delegates. The lines which
say that independence was declared at this meeting recite a falsehood.
In his recent book on the Mecklenburg Declaration (p. 30), Dr. George
W. Graham claims that "The genuineness of the ' Censor ' is vouched for by
Wheeler's History of North Carolina, Lyman Draper's manuscript in the
Thwait Library, and Hon. David L. Swain, then president of the Univer-
sity of North Carolina, in whose possession the original poem was at the
time of his death in 1868." None of the authorities cited by Graham have
afforded us any proof of the genuineness of Swain's copy of the poem.
Wheeler's History of N. C. merely says (ii, 239) that Adam Brevard "wrote
a piece called the * Mecklenburg Censor,' full of wit and humor." Draper's
manuscript work against the authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration,
{which is in the Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, of
which Reuben G. Thwaites is secretary and superintendent) contains no
stronger foundation for Dr. Graham's assertions than a copy of Swain's
letter of March 18, 1857, to Bancroft, from which we have quoted the
pertinent passage. Swain does not say in this letter that he had the original
poem or a paper in the handwriting of Adam Brevard, although he believed
his paper to be " authentic"; and no other letter of his that refers to it has
ever been produced. Brevard was a schoolboy at Charlotte in the autumn
of 1776, and a blacksmith after the war. Later he studied law. From
this and from his narrative in Wheeler's Reminiscences of N. C., 241-243,
it seems doubtful if he had either literary ability or knowledge of the times
sufficient to have enabled him to write the poem.
A strange fiction about Adam Brevard was published a few years before
this poem came into Swain's hands. Its author claimed that Adam Brevard
told him that he wrote the Mecklenburg Declaration for his brother
Ephraim, and took the Westminster Confession as his guide. Later he
said that Adam Brevard wrote it as the amanuensis of his brother. See
the Presbyterian Magazine, Feb., 1852, ii, 75-76; National Intelligencer,
Nov. 6, 1857; True Witness (New Orleans), May 26, 1860; No. Amer,
Rev., Apr., 1874; Mag. of Amer. Hist., xxi, 232.
Origin of the Myth 119
sich fuer so frey u. independent von England declarirtc, u.
solche Einrichtung zur Verwaltung der Geseze unter sich
machte, als jamalen der Continental Congress hernach ins
Ganze gethan. Dieser Congress aber sahe dieses Verfahren
als zu fruehzeitig an.
The italicised words are written in English script.
The English translation is :
I cannot leave unmentioned at the end of the 17 75th year
that already in the summer of this year, that is in May, June,
or July, the County of Mecklenburg in North Carolina declared
itself free and independent of England, and made such arrange-
ments for the administration of the laws among themselves, as
later the Continental Congress made for all. This Congress,
however, considered these proceedings premature.
The date and authorship of this paper, which
unfortunately lacks both date and signature, have
been established by Miss Adelaide L. Fries, of
Winston-Salem, N. C. In an article published in
The Wachovia Moravian oi April, 1906, Miss Fries
shows that the record was written at Salem in the
autumn of 1783 by Traugott Bagge, a merchant
and man of affairs in the town during the Revolu-
tionary War. 1
Unfortunately Traugott Bagge does not so de-
scribe the declaration to which he refers that it may
be readily identified. But if it be admitted that a be-
lief gained currency in Mecklenburg county and the
1 Miss Fries's excellent paper was also published in the Charlotte Observer
of April 15, 1906. The material parts were reprinted in the North Amer-
ican Review for July, 1906. Facsimile reproductions of the Moravian
record will be found in Harper's Weekly for July 7, 1906 (L, No. 2585),
and in the Charlotte Daily Observer of December 18, 1905, and May 20,
1906.
i2o The Mecklenburg Declaration
vicinity as early as 1783 that the May 3ist resolves
were a declaration of independence, his recollec-
tions must be understood as relating to them.
After a lapse of eight years he could not say with
certainty in what month the declaration to which
he referred was made, and did not recollect that in
spirit and in form it bore a striking resemblance to
the then well-known Declaration of July 4, 1776.
The one significant fact which was impressed upon
his memory was that, after declaring independence,
Mecklenburg county " made such arrangements
for the administration of the laws among them-
selves as later the Continental Congress made for
all," and that the Continental Congress then " con-
sidered these proceedings premature." The only
measures taken by the Continental Congress before
July 4, 1776, respecting " administration of the
laws " in the colonies were the recommendations to
form local governments given to New Hampshire,
South Carolina, and Virginia, anticipated by the
May 3ist resolves, and the resolution of May 15,
1776, which "recommended to the respective as-
semblies and conventions of the United Colonies,
where no government sufficient to the exigencies
of their affairs have been hitherto established, to
adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of
the representatives of the people, best conduce to
the happiness and safety of their constituents
in particular, and America in general." 1 The
May 3ist resolves took substantially the position
of the Continental Congress on May 15, 1776.
1 Journals of the Continental Congress, iv., 342, 357~358.
Origin of the Myth 1 2 1
When Mecklenburg proposed it a year before,
"Congress considered these proceedings premature.'*
There are a few old deeds on file in the court-
house in Charlotte which have been adduced as
evidence that Mecklenburg declared independence
in 1775. They were recorded during and imme-
diately after the Revolutionary War, when it was
customary to recite the date of the execution of
deeds from "American Independence," or from
" the independence of America," similar to the
former custom of dating them " in the reign
of George the Third." Three deeds are in
Charlotte which seem to reckon the time of " our
independence" from 1775, and one which dates
" the independence of the State of North Caro-
lina " from the same year. The earliest of these
four, which are cited in Dr. George W. Graham's
work on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1 reads :
"This indenture made this J3th day of February,
1779, and in the fourth year of our independence."
A few persons of strong local pride may have dated
their deeds from what they remembered as Meck-
lenburg's declaration of independence, but this
would have been likely to excite doubts in other
counties or in other states as to whether they were
correctly dated. Moreover, even in the adjoining
county of Rowan, Traugott Bagge, a merchant
and man of affairs, did not know the exact date of
the supposed declaration. The apparent reference
to that declaration is probably nothing more than
the result of error in calculating the time from
1 The Mecklenburg Declaration^ 31-32.
J&
122 The Mecklenburg Declaration
July 4, 1776; or perhaps the first year of inde-
pendence was regarded as ending on the last day of
the year 1776. Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., of Columbia,
S. C., has unearthed several indentures of this
period, made in South Carolina, which are dated
one year too many from, or one year too short of,
July 4, 1776. He quotes the opinion of an emi-
nent lawyer to the effect that the matter is "un-
worthy of the notice of any historical student." 1 At
all events, we are willing to treat them as evidence of
a growing belief that the May 3ist resolves consti-
tuted a declaration of independence.
We have considered all the evidence, of an earl-
ier date than 1800, of Mecklenburg's " Declaration
of Independence " which researches extending over
nearly a century have thus far brought to light.
There is no evidence before 1 800 which confirms
the alleged date of the transaction May 20, 1775.
Dr. George W. Graham argues that the date is de-
termined by the following circumstance 2 : "On
May 20, 1787, the twelfth anniversary of the meet-
ing at Charlotte, there was born to Major John
Davidson, one of the signers, a son, Benjamin
Wilson. And in honor of the Mecklenburg Dec-
laration Benjamin was called by his father ' My
Independence Boy, ' and to distinguish his identity
in a county abounding in ' Davidsons ' was known
among the neighbors as * Independence Ben. ' For
this fact we are indepted to Mr. Robert F., aged
seventy-five, and Dr. Joseph, aged sixty-eight years
1 Charleston, S. C., Sunday News, July 8, 1906.
1 The Mecklenburg Declaration. , 35-36.
Origin of the Myth 123
sons of Benjamin Wilson Davidson, who now reside
in Charlotte and are men of the highest integrity.
Ben Davidson died when about forty-five years of
age and is buried in Hopewell Cemetery, where
his tombstone now [1895] stands with the date of his
birth, May 20, 1787, inscribed upon it." Dr. Graham
seems to overlook the fact that Messrs. Robert F.
and Dr. Joseph Davidson do not say that their
father received the sobriquets of " My Indepen-
dence Boy" and " Independence Ben " before 1800,
or even before 1819, when the date of May 2Oth
received much publicity. Their statement is of no
significance whatever unless this was their meaning.
Ben Davidson was certainly considerably over thir-
teen years of age when his father began to call him
" My Independence Boy, " for as late as 1830, when
Major John Davidson was requested to state what
he recollected about the Mecklenburg Declaration
meeting, which he had attended as a member, the
date of his son's birth was not associated in his mind
with the date of that meeting. As to the date of
the meeting he could only say : " I am confident
that the Declaration of Independence by the
people of Mecklenburg was made public at least
twelve months before that of the Congress of the
United States." 1 The Mecklenburg resolutions
were adopted more than thirteen months before
July 4, 1776.
Having shown that the growth of the myth of
the " Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence"
1 John Davidson to Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander, October 5, 1830,
State Pamphlet, Appendix.
124 The Mecklenburg Declaration
was likely, if not inevitable, and that all evidence
of an earlier date than 1800 which is cited in support
of the authenticity of the paper of May 20, 1775,
applies as easily or more aptly to the paper of
May 31, 1775, we pass to the earliest known
evidence of the alleged declaration of indepen-
dence.
CHAPTER IX
THE DAVIE COPY
ON April 6, 1800, the records of the Mecklen-
burg Committee of Safety were burned with the
dwelling of John McKnitt Alexander, in Mecklen-
burg county. Alexander had been a member of
the committee, a representative from Mecklenburg
in the Provincial Congresses of August and Sep-
tember, 1775, and of April, 1776, and an active
patriot during the Revolutionary War. He was
sixty-seven years of age in 1800. At the suggestion,
perhaps, of some of his old friends in Mecklenburg,
or because he felt it incumbent upon himself, as
the last custodian of the records, to preserve some
memento of the deeds of his compatriots of "'75 "
he reduced to writing his recollections of them at
some time during the five months succeeding the
destruction of the records. His manuscript was
found in a mutilated condition, shortly after his
death in 1817, by ms son > Dr. Joseph McKnitt
Alexander. It was accompanied by a paper in an
unknown handwriting which contained the same
resolutions and historical note, with a few text-
ual variations, as were published in the Raleigh
Register of April 30, 1819. In a certificate to these
125
i26 The Mecklenburg Declaration
documents, which were submitted to the committee
appointed by the Legislature of North Carolina in
1830 to examine the documentary proofs of the
authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration, Dr.
Alexander stated that he had " always taken " from
the paper in an unknown handwriting, which was
entire, where portions of the paper written by his
father were lost ; meaning, without doubt, that he
prepared from them the paper published in 1819.
John McKnitt Alexander's manuscript is here
reproduced from a copy made during the fifties for
George Bancroft, the historian, which is now among
the Bancroft manuscripts in the New York Public
Library. Care was taken by the copyist, as will
be seen from the facsimile of his manuscript, to
reproduce every line and letter as it appeared in
the original ; and he imitated the handwriting in
several places. He copied as follows : J
1775
On the 19* May 1775 ["6" was written through
"5"] Pursuant to the Order of Col? Tho! Polk 3
to each Captain of Militia in his reigment of Meek- sic
lenburg County, to elect nominate and appoint 2
persons of their Militia company, cloathed with
ample powers to devise ways & means to extricate
themselves and ward off the dreadfull impending
storm bursting on them by the British Nation &*: &*
Therefore on s? 19^ May the s<* Committee met
sic in Charlotte Town (2 men from each company)
1 The italicised portions are notes in pencil by the copyist.
Tho. Polk
9 In the original it is written thus : Col. Adam Alexander.
u**u ue;
Bancroft's copy of the " torn half sheet" in John McKnitt Alexander's handwriting from
which the Mecklenburg Declaration was constructed.
i /*&
'-
uJ& r a)
k&4/
rc v-tn^AJ drwi/rn4<
&
' <fjrff\
tju csU> X
t,asujLod&J te~<S<
vWUtfto) ty n&-im^0W'yj t<i^j </ CciA*nfa) ________ cuntS; 'u << <f> f.'tss.>i<^
l/ /rt/tj( / cu36 /A*} L^fC^ie^nAt) /jrrUid4r?*\> a me a v"
fWSl4&ttS ty <A; .
s/> // /;' *
c/ ' -^jfeffy* ? trtflriA
v tifUA/
rtieJ bn.c-
i.) c.irtiArCt.'Ht..<^s vtw.
The Davie Copy 127
or conceived they had
sic Vested with all powers these their constituents had^&f
about
sic After a short conferance ^~e their suffering
brethren beseiged and suffering every hardship in
Boston and the American Blood running in Lexing-
fire
sic ton &. c the Electrical^flew into every breast and to
Esquire
sic preserve order-a4 Choose Abraham Alex^ chairman
Secretary a few
& J. M C K. A. After ^ about^^an Hour free discussion
in order to give relief to suffering America and protect
our Just & natural right
I s . 1 We (the County) by a Solemn and awfull
abjured
vote, Dissolved our allegiance to King George & the
British Nation.
2* Declared our selves a free & independent people,
having a right and capable to govern ourselves (as
a part of North Carolina)
3? In order to have laws as a rule of life for our
sic future Government We forme4 a Code of laws, by
adopting our former wholesome laws,
then
4* And as there was^no officers civil or Millitary
in our County
We Decreed that every Millitia officer in s* County
should hold and occupy his former commission and
Grade
And that every member present, of this Committee
shall henceforth \torn\ as a Justice of the Peace (in
The original the) Character of a Committee M
is torn here hear and determine all Controversies agree-
at all the able to sMaws peace Union
blanks. & harmony in s*? County and to use
every spread the Electrial fire of free-
dom among ourselves & u
128 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the
sic 5* ^Mr& c . & c . many other laws & ordinances were
then ma after sitting up in the
Court house all night neither
After reading and maturing every paragraph every sic
sic par- they were all passed Nem-Con about 12 o'clock
May 20.^-80 1775 *
But in a few days (after cooling) a considerable
part of s d . Committee Men conveened and employed
Capt" James Jack (of Charlotte) to go express to
Congress (then in Philadelphia) with a Copy of all
resolutions and
s d ... Laws & and a letter to our members there, sic
W 1 ?
sic Rich* Caswell,^ Joseph Hooper & Joseph Hughes in sic
order to get Congress to sanction or approve them
&< &<:
Capt" Jack returned with a long, full, complasent
letter from s<? 3 members, recommending our zeal
sic recommending perseverance order & forbearance & c .
(We were premature) Congress never had our s*
laws on their table for discussion, though s d . Copy
was left with them by Capt? Jack.
sic N. B: about 1785 ["5" was changed to "7"]
tT^^Doctor Hugh Williamson (then of New York ;
but formerly was member of Congress from this
The original state) applied
is here above by Col W Polk, who was then
torn compiling a
in order to prove that the American people
in the Revolution and that Congress
were com
1 This is written so in the original.
'
npwru IA/M
H-o
The Davie Copy 129
N. B. allowing the 19* May to be a rash Act
The original effects in binding all the middle * west
is here firm whigs no torys but
torn. not fully represented in the first
2dpage
Be it remembered. That the within mentioned
Committee Men continued to act as Justices and
or tollerated to act
were confirmed^ in their offices by the Counsel of sit
then sitting
Safety in Newbern & Wilmington alternately about
-^77 [not legible] and continued to hold their quarterly
Sessions in Charlotte as usual and-uo appeals from no
s? Justices for they had the confidence of the peo-
ple and such was the Enthusiism of the people at sic
large ''that whatever was the voice of the People
was the voice of God" all was submission. Thus
matters were carried on when lord Cornwallis was
in Charlotte in the fall of 1780 " He was in a
Hornets-nest " no communications to, or from but
the great Cambden road all firm whigs but at
[not legible] and they dare not move nor Cheap. sic
or 2^
And the first Court held in Charlotte after
lord Cornwallis retreated retrograded or run away
from Charlotte, the Court adjourned or rather ap-
pointed a Special Court of Enquiry which set by
regular adjournments at Charlotte at Col? James
Harris at Col? Phifers one week at each place to
which places all suspicious persons were brought
under Guard formally tried some from Lincoln
and
& Rowan Countys & even Booth^ Dunn (lawyers)
from Salisbury were convicted and ordered off under
Guard with several others
sic These severe just tho arbitary measures were
sic the cause of peace \torn\ the County until! -July 4
9
130 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the fall of 1777 when our first [torn] embly
met in Newbern in the State of North Carolina and
nearly all that was done
confirmed [torn] proved ^ all we had done. New State sic
commissions then issued &' [torn] fficers as they
yet do see the laws of s? session of 1777.
[torn] & foregoing extracted from the old
minutes &?
By J MK Alexander
[torn] ch were the feeling and sympathiteck sensations sic
of the Mecklenburgers, when they knew their brethren
of Boston were beseiged by General Gage & in a state
of Starvation, that in each Capt" Militia company a
Subscription was signed for their relief many sub-
scribed one Bullock other 2 Joined for one Bullock
and none was suffered to sign but what the officers
sic and leading men admited, & for whom they were
responsible &^ And had there been a plan of gover- sic
ment for their driving to Boston, 100 would have
been given in the county in one week the next news
we heard Boston had got relief We were thanked
for our goodwill
And soon afterwards we smelt and felt the Blood
& carnage of Lexington which raised all the pas-
sic sions into fury which was and revenge which was
j/V the immediate cause of abjuring Great britain on May
ig. +3 1775.
April 19. 1775. wa the battle at Lexington
The rest is torn off.
The person who copied the foregoing manuscript
stated that it was " sewed up in a sheet of paper on
which was written the Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence as printed in the Raleigh Register of
/
hs&AS W
//
ffcO d'^&^^ei^^ MMSHJ
W $vtfigr?v MsAJJ v-t^cet^C uw y^
Me&eJcSt*
//' '
//
^*v (n>
s <&^
y
V
&4f-t>)s(,ty'<ri f \;
v Z
It
/
The Davie Copy
April 30, 1819," but with a few variations. In
the paper reproduced in the accompanying facsim-
ile he copied these variations and all corrections,
erasures, etc., in the original manuscript, and noted
their place by the number of the line of the corre-
sponding portion of the Raleigh Register document
as reprinted in the State Pamphlet. Reconstructed
from the copyist's notes and the State Pamphlet,
the manuscript in an unknown handwriting, to which
John McKnitt Alexander's was attached, is as
follows :
N? Carolina Mecklenberg County. Declaration of Inde-
pendence May 20. I775. 1
In the spring of 1775, the leading characters of Mecklen-
burg county, stimulated by that enthusiastic-ardour patriotism
which elevates the mind above considerations of individual
agrandisement, and scorning to shelter themselves from the im-
pending storm by submission to lawless power, &c. &c. held
several detached meetings, in each of which the individual
sentiments were, " that the cause of Boston was the cause
of all ; that their destinies were indissolubly Jbted connected
with those of their Eastern fellow-citizens and that they
must either submit to all the impositions which an unprincipled,
and to them an unrepresented, Parliament might impose
or support their brethren who were doomed to sustain the
first shock of that power, which, if successful there, would
ultimately overwhelm all-with in the common calamity." Con-
formably to these principles -it-was Col n . Adam Alexander,
["Thos. Polk" written through "Adam Alexander"]
thr. solicitation
was authorised to issued an order to each Captain's company
comprising
in the county of Mecklenburg, (then-embracing the present
county of Cabarrus,) directing each militia company to elect
1 This title was in a different handwriting.
132 The Mecklenburg Declaration
persons, and delegate to them ample powers to devise
ways and means to aid and assist their suffering brethren in
Boston, and also generally to adopt measures to extricate
themselves from the impending storm, and to secure un-
impaired their inaliable rights, privileges and liberties, from
the dominant grasp of British imposition and tryanny.
In conformity to said order, on the ipth of May, 1775, the
town ^1
said delegation met in * Charlotte ^ vested with unlimited
powers ; at which time official news, by express, arrived
of the battle of Lexington on that day of the previceding
month. Every delegate felt the value and importance of
the prize, and the awfull and solemn crisis which had arrived
every bosom swelled with indignation at the malice, inveteracy,
and insatiable revenge, developed in the late attact at Lex-
ington. The universal sentiment was : let us not flatter
ourselves that popular harangues, or resolves ; that popular
vapour will avert the storm, or vanquish our common enemy
let us deliberate let us calculate the issue the probable
result ; and then let us act with energy, as brethren leagued to
preserve our property our lives and what is still more en-
dearing, the liberties of America. Abraham Alexander was
then elected Chairman, and John McKnitt Alexander, Clerk.
After a free and full discussion of the various objects for
which the delegation had been convened, it was unanimously
ordained
1 That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted, or in any
way, form, or manner, countenanced the unchartered and
dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by G. britain is
an enemy to this County to America and to the inherent
and inaliable rights of man.
do
2 We the Citizens of Mecklenburg County are- hereby
de the
political bands which have connected us to the
1 Note in the margin: " ' town* Is the handwriting of J n ? M c K? Alex-
ander.
"J. M? Knitt."
1s&C&r t
jf 'Ul/U V
^
A ff
// W 'V
^^/^ZZn,l
/ -.->- ' , ^
/y'
/, </ / ^ "faoa4v /V ^u f.MJstWi/j f-0
,fy 7 - ' ^ ^
The Bancroft copyist's description of the " sheet" in an " unknown handwriting" from
which the publication of 1819 was copied.
//
>&
if
'</nS '
- oisC -rin-ij -
1<<AQJ l,{Tt<t'yd<s
/
.
ft)
+v /%/>< 'vni,i./ ^m
a)
//
The Davie Copy 133
Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all alle-
giance to the British Crown, and abjure all political connection,
association
contract, or dependence with that nation, who have wantonly
trampled on our rights and liberties and inhumanly shed the
innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.
3 We do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent
people, are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-gov-
erning Association, under the control of no power other than
that of our God and the General Government of the g con-
gress to the maintainance of which independance civil & re-
ligious we solemnly pledge to each other, our mutual co-opera-
tion, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.
4 As we now acknowledge the existance & controul of no
law or legal officer, civil or military, within this county, we
do hereby ordain and adopt, as a rule of life, all, each and
every of our former laws, wherein, nevertheless, the Crown of
never can
great britain nevertheless can & ought be considered as hold-
ing rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.
5 It is also further decreed, that all, each and every mili-
tary officer in this county, is hereby reinstated to his former
command and authority, he acting conformably to these reg-
ulations. And that every member present of this delegation
be civil officer ~et viz ask
shall henceforth act-as.^ a Justice of the Peace, in the character
of a * Committee-man, " to hoar issue process, hear and
determine all matters of controversy, according to said
adopted laws, and to preserve peace, and union, and harmony,
in said county, and to use every exertion to spread the love
of country and fire of freedom throughout America, until a
more general and organized government be established in this
State province.
shall
A selection from the members present was constituted a
Committee of public safety for s? County.
A number of bye laws were also added, merely to protect
the association from confusion, and to regulate their general
conduct as citizens. After setting up in the Court House all
134 The Mecklenburg Declaration
night neither sleepy hungry or fatigued and after discussing
every paragraph, they were all passed, sanctioned, and de-
unanimously
creed iieui cuii about rz o'Clock^ May 20* l In a few
deputation convened
days a second meeting of s? delegation of took place, when
Capt. James Jack, of Charlotte, was deputed as express to
Congress in Philadelphia, with a copy of said Resolves and
Proceedings, together with a letter addressed to our three re-
presentatives there, viz. Richard Caswell, W? JaMrlooper
and Joseph Hughes under express injunctions, personally,
& thro' the s^ State representation, to use all possible means
to have said proceedings sanctioned and approved by the
General Congress. On the return of Captain Jack, the dele-
gation learned that their proceedings were individually ap-
proved by the Members of Congress, but that it was deemed
premature to lay them before the house those a joint letter
from said three members of Congress was also received,
complimentary of the zeal in the common cause, and recom-
mending perseverance, order and energy.
The subsequent harmony, unanimity, and exertion in the
cause of liberty and independence, evidently resulting from
these regulations, and the continued exertion of said delega-
tion, apparently tranquilised this section of the State, and met
with the concurrence and high approbation of the Council of
Safety, who held their sessions at Newbern and Wilmington,
alternately, and who confirmed the nomination and acts of
the delegation in their official capacity.
From this delegation originated the Court of Enquiry of
this county, who constituted and held their first session ^ irn^
soon after in Charlotte rcmuvcu frum
liicuicttcly ' Oil JLjUiil CJOi n WitHis icctvmg CJnciilulLc 111 I lie year
then
iTSo^ they held their meetings regularly at Charlotte, at Col.
James Harris's, and at Col. Phifer's, alternately, one week at
civil
each place. It was a military court founded on military
process. Before this Judicature, all suspicious persons were
1 Over the caret the original manuscript was scratched into a hole.
f
The Davie Copy 135
made to appear, were formally tried and banished, or con-
tinued under guard. Its jurisdiction was as unlimited as
toryism, and its decrees as final as the confidence and patriotism
of the county. Several were arrested and brought before
them from Lincoln, Rowan and the adjacent counties Booth
& Dunn (lawyers) were brot from Salisbury tryed convicted
proscribed & banished &*: &?
The " sheet " in an unknown handwriting and the
mutilated "half sheet" written by John McKnitt
Alexander were thus certified by his son :
No. Carolina, )
Mecklenburg County, j
The sheet and torn half sheet to which this is attached (the
sheet is evidently corrected in two places by John McKnitt
Alexander as marked on it JflT 3 the half sheet is in his own
handwriting) were found after the death of Jno. McKnitt
Alexander in his old mansion house in the centre of a roll of
old pamphlets, viz. : " an address on public liberty printed
Philadelphia, 1774 ; " one "on the Disputes with G. Britain,
printed 1775 " ; one " on State affairs, printed at Hillsborough,
1788 " ; and " an address on Federal policy to the Citizens of
No. C., a 1788 " ; and the " Journal of the Provincial Congress
of No. C., a held at Hallifax the 4 of April, 1776," which
papers have been in my possession ever since.
Certifyed Novr. 25th, 1830.
(signed) J. McKNiTT.
In an address delivered at an Academy near Charlotte, pub-
lished in the Raleigh Minerva of loth Augt., 1809, the Meck-
lenburg Declaration is distinctly stated, etc.
As to the full sheet being in an unknown handwrite, it
matters not who may have thus copyed the original record :
by comparing the copy deposited with Genl. Davie they two
will be found so perfectly the same, so far as his is preserved,
that no imposition is possible the one from the same original
as the other is conclusive. I have therefore always taken from
the one which is entire, where the other is lost, the entire sheet
136 The Mecklenburg Declaration
is most probably a copy taken long since from the original
for some person, corrected by Jno. McKnitt Alexander, and
now sent on. the roll of pamphlets with which these two
papers were found I never knew were amongst his old survey-
ing and other old papers untill after his death, they may
have been unrolled since 1788.
(signed) J. McKNiTT.
When last known to be extant, the originals of
the foregoing documents were in the possession of
David L. Swain. Swain was governor of North
Carolina from 1833 to X 836, president of the State
University from 1835 to 1868, and "Historical
Agent " for procuring documents relating to North
Carolina history during the fifties. Much of his
great historical collection, including manuscripts
borrowed from the State archives, from the univer.
sity, and from private persons, was scattered after
his death in 1 868 1 ; and practically all the original
documents collected before that date to prove that
Mecklenburg county declared independence in
1775 were lost. As early as 1851 Governor Swain 8
had in his possession all the original papers that
were copied into the State Pamphlet, the preface to
which was written by him for Governor Montfort
1 Sketch of Swain in Peele's Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians ;
and private information from Dr. Kemp P. Battle, ex-president of the Univ.
of N. C. At the time of Governor Swain's death, the documents which
did not belong to him were, unfortunately, in his private library, and not
mentioned in his will. During the Reconstruction period many were lost,
sold, or given away. All that remains of the Swain collection, of which
the writer has any knowledge, is in the State archives, in the archives of
the University of North Carolina, and in the Emmet Collection in the
N. Y. Pub. Lib.
* Swain to Benson J. Lossing, Dec. 20, 1851 ; transcript in the Bancroft
Collection, N. Y. Pub. Lib.
s . ,
^^ <rt-i,' /-ud
Copy of the certificate attached by Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander to the anonymous
manuscript and his father's.
U ?&.?.
,-/ ^(V/ /' d '.' &0L
The Davie Copy 137
Stokes. " After that pamphlet was compiled," said
Governor William A. Graham in a special message
to the Legislature on January 8, 1847, "the various
original papers referred to in it were returned by
Governor Stokes to Dr. J. McKnitt Alexander,
of Mecklenburg, at the request of the latter, by
whom they had been collected and furnished to
the General Assembly. These were obtained from
the family of the only son and Executor of Dr.
Alexander (both father and son being now dead) in
the Autumn of 1845, and are now in this office."
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander's certificate to the
foregoing manuscripts identifies them as those re-
ferred to in his certificate to the narrative and
resolutions published in 1819 and reprinted in the
State Pamphlet. He certified the latter to be a
true copy of papers left in his hands by John
McKnitt Alexander. The published document is
not quite word for word the same as what appeared
in the manuscript in an unknown handwriting, but
this was due for the most part to emendations
made when it was first printed from Dr. Joseph
McKnitt Alexander's letter to William Davidson.
Colonel Folk's transcript of that letter 1 shows that
in copying the manuscript in an unknown hand-
writing Dr. Alexander inserted " Resolved " before
each resolution and " A. M." before " 2 o'clock " in
the accompanying narrative, and omitted the words
"civil and religious" in the third resolution, a line
of the narrative immediately following the resolu-
tions, and the word " up " in the phrase following
1 See Appendix.
138 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the omitted line. With these exceptions he copied
accurately.
The committee appointed by the Legislature of
North Carolina in November, 1830, which reported
that they had " examined, collated, and arranged
all the documents which have been accessible to
them touching the Declaration of Independence
by the citizens of Mecklenburg," undoubtedly ex-
amined the papers referred to by Dr. Alexander.
The date of the certificate to those reproduced
above, November 25, as well as its tenor, shows
that it was addressed to that committee. It is most
likely that they were among the papers obtained in
1845 fr m the family of Dr. Alexander's son and
borrowed from the Executive Office in Raleigh by
Governor Swain some time before 1851.
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander published the
notes on the Mecklenburg resolutions contained in
the "half sheet" written by his father in the
Yadkin and Catawba Journal (Salisbury, N. C.)
of November 9, 1830. Extracts copied from the
original manuscript are also to be found in a pub-
lished address delivered at Wake Forest College
in 1852 by Romulus M. Saunders. When preparing
this address Judge Saunders examined all the docu-
ments on the Mecklenburg Declaration then in the
possession of Governor Swain. He describes the
Alexander manuscripts as " Two papers, furnished
by Dr. Alexander, who certifies that they were
found by him among some old pamphlets of his
father's, the one a half-sheet in the hand-writing of
John McKnitt Alexander, the other a full sheet in
The Davie Copy 139
some ' unknown hand.' These papers were stitched
together ; the half-sheet is an old paper, and from
its appearance, I should say in all reasonable pro-
bability is the oldest manuscript we have of the
meeting of May, 1775. The other sheet gives the
same statement and resolutions as published, and
has one or two corrections in the hand-writing of
John McKnitt Alexander."
The carefully prepared copies of the Alexander
manuscripts are in a volume of historical matter of
the year 1775 in the Bancroft Collection (America.
1 775. Vol. ii., p. 69). The volume consists mostly of
transcripts of manuscripts relating to America in
the British archives in London. A part of it is
devoted to matter on the Mecklenburg Declaration
collected by Bancroft, and includes letters of Gov-
ernor Swain, Charles Phillips, Hugh Blair Grigsby,
and Henry S. Randall. Bancroft was in correspond-
ence with Swain as early as 1835 and as late as
1858. The scrupulous regard for accuracy with
which the papers reproduced above were manifestly
prepared, their agreement with extracts from the
original manuscripts published in 1830 and 1852,
the copyist's notes upon the condition of the origi-
nals, the opportunity afforded Bancroft by his
acquaintance with Governor Swain of obtaining
accurate copies, his keen interest in the Mecklen-
burg controversy, and his belief in the accuracy of
the copies which he obtained at the time when the
originals were extant, render it certain that these
copies are perfect reproductions of the originals.
Notwithstanding the statement on a mutilated
The Mecklenburg Declaration
portion of the paper in John McKnitt Alexander's
handwriting that the " foregoing [was] extracted
from the old minutes &c., " it was obviously pre-
pared after the destruction of the records of the
Mecklenburg committee in April, 1 800. Alexander
no doubt meant that he reproduced in substance
what had been stated in the " old minutes &c. " as
he recalled them. Such a crude paper would never
have been written were the records or transcripts
of them accessible. The entire paper is on its face
a narrative of events long passed away, some of
which occurred during the later years of the Revo-
lutionary War, and it recites many circumstances
for which John McKnitt Alexander obviously drew
upon his memory. Errors in regard to the person
who issued the order for the meeting described and
in regard to the clerk of the meeting, which will be
noticed later, are revealed by the testimony of
others who attended it. Moreover, Alexander ex-
pressed his uncertainty about facts which must have
been stated in the records. He wrote Joseph for
William Hooper, afterwards correcting his error,
and Hughes for Hewes. He was in doubt as to
whether it was the "first or 2d" meeting of the
committee men held in Charlotte after the retreat
of Cornwallis that appointed a court of inquiry.
He might easily have satisfied himself on this point
could he have consulted the records of the Meck-
lenburg committee and court of inquiry which
were burned in his house. He wrote so long
after sending a copy of the Mecklenburg resolutions
to Hugh Williamson that he thought at first that
The Davie Copy I4 1
-* V-B'-. -'.{;
it was sent in 1785, and twice thereafter recollected
a different year. His inadvertency, on two occa-
sions, in writing "18" and "180" when intending
to write "1775" makes it plain that he wrote in
1800 or later. Even if it could be demonstrated,
in the face of this evidence, that the paper co-ex-
isted with the records that were burned in April,
1800, John McKnitt Alexander's crude notes on the
resolutions which he understood to be a declara-
tion of independence prove conclusively that their
phraseology was not fixed in his memory.
A comparison of the foregoing papers reveals
unmistakable evidence that the paper in an un-
known handwriting was prepared from Alexander's
notes. The anonymous paper is clearly not an
original draft. It is nothing more than a revision
of the notes, with a few facts added, and retaining
many of the better-worded phrases of both the
narrative and condensed resolutions or decrees.
The numerous coincidences of order and form in
which the same facts are stated in the two papers
need not be pointed out specifically. The paper
which was attached to Alexander's notes contains
the errors found in the notes as to the principals
at the meeting, gives Hooper the name of Joseph,
afterwards corrected in both papers, and repeats
the statement that the resolutions were adopted
at 12 o'clock at night, which was subsequently
changed to 2 o'clock. Corrections made at the
time of writing in the resolutions as well as in the
narrative also show that the records were not at
hand when they were prepared. Only two correc-
The Mecklenburg Declaration
tions are attributed to John McKnitt Alexander by
his son. Instances of changes made in the text of
the resolutions at the time of writing may be seen
in the third resolution, where the half-formed word
"general," before "congress," was struck out;
in the fourth resolution, where the phrase struck
out and rewritten could not have been copied from
an original record by the grossest inadvertency,
nor left uncorrected in the manuscript of any one
of ordinary intelligence ; in the fifth resolution,
where the word "issue" was substituted for " hear,"
which appears in the same connection in Alexander's
notes, by writing not above but on the line, and
hence before the next word was written ; and in the
same resolution where the word "province" was
substituted for " State. " The writer would certainly
not have assumed to improve the phraseology of
the resolutions as well as the historical statement
if he copied from a record, nor would John
McKnitt Alexander have changed only two words
if he himself did not rely solely upon his memory
for the form of the resolutions. The number and
character of the emendations in the resolutions
preclude the possibility of their being corrections
of errors made in transcribing an original record.
Finally the literary style of the resolutions and
narrative betray a common authorship. They
exhibit the same method of frequently presenting
several verbs and nouns to express the same action
or thing ; contain some of the same peculiar words;
present the same ambitious, forcible, but inaccurate
diction, and, in a word, have the same ring through-
The Davie Copy 143
out. 1 They bear every mark of having been writ-
ten by some one endeavoring to express the spirit
of the period and to make it as strong as possible.
The style resembles that of Alexander's notes, and
many words and phrases of the narrative and reso-
lutions are to be found in the notes, but this is a far
more scholarly paper. It is wholly unlike that of
Ephraim Brevard, who is said to have been au-
thor of the " Mecklenburg Declaration of Indepen-
dence. " Brevard was a graduate of Princeton, an
able writer, and the acknowledged draftsman of the
Mecklenburg resolves of May 31, 1775. He could
not have written a paper with such numerous tau-
tologies and bungling imitation of the language of
legal instruments.
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander stated in his
certificate accompanying the document published
in the Raleigh Register of April 30, 1819, that he
found it " mentioned on file " that a copy of the
" proceedings " was sent to Gen. William R. Davie.
The Davie copy, in John McKnitt Alexander's
handwriting, was found in a mutilated condition
among General Davie's papers shortly after his death
in i 82O. 2 As far as it was preserved, it was "perfectly
the same, " according to Dr. Alexander's certificate
of November 25, 1830, as the paper in an unknown
handwriting from which he prepared the publication
of 1819. Instead of copying directly from the
Davie manuscript, which they described as " some-
1 H. S. Randall : Life of Thomas Jefferson, iii., 581.
* See Dr. Henderson's certificate, State Pamphlet, and N. C. Univ. Mag.^
May, 1853, ii., 170. In 1853, only the last two of the resolutions printed
in the Raleigh Register in 1819 appeared in the Davie paper.
144 The Mecklenburg Declaration
\
what torn, but is entirely legible," the editors of
the State Pamphlet reprinted the resolutions and
historical note from the Raleigh Register as the
paper "originally deposited by John McKnitt
Alexander in the hands of Gen. Davie. " The age
and trustworthiness of the Davie paper and of its
counterpart in the unknown handwriting are fixed
by the conclusion to the former 1 :
It may be worthy of notice here to observe that the foregoing
statement, though fundamentally correct, yet may not literally
correspond with the original record of the transactions of said
delegation and court of enquiry, as all those records and papers
were burnt with the house on April 6th, 1800; but previous to
that time of 1800, a full copy of said records, at the request
of Doctor Hugh Williamson, then of New York, but formerly
a representative in Congress from this State, was forwarded to
him by Col. Wm. Polk, in order that those early transactions
might fill their proper place in a history of this State then
writing by said Doctor Williamson in New York.
Certified to the best of my recollection and belief ", this 3d day
of September, 1800, by
J. McK. ALEXANDER.
Mecklenburg County, N. C.
This certificate of John McKnitt Alexander
remained unknown to the world until the Rev.
Charles Phillips, D.D., professor of mathematics
at the University of North Carolina, and secretary
of the Historical Society of the University, copied
it from the original Davie paper placed in his hands
by Governor Swain, and published it in an elaborate
article contributed by him to the North Carolina
University Magazine of May, 1853. The Davie
1 N. C. Univ. Mag., May, 1853, *7$ The italics are not in the
original.
The Davie Copy 145
paper was removed from the Executive Office at
Raleigh by Governor Swain for critical inspection
and lost between 1868 and 1875, when the Swain
collection was scattered. The authenticity of this
certificate has rarely been questioned, and many
times after its publication Professor Phillips con-
firmed its textual accuracy as given above in its integ-
rity. 1 " His high personal character," said James C.
Welling, who knew him, " is a sufficient guarantee
for his loyalty to truth in this matter. Moreover,
as the document at the time of its publication was
still in the custody of Governor Swain, it is impos-
sible that a member of his faculty, writing with his
full cognizance, could have published a falsification
of the document without instantaneous detection
and exposure. "
Letters of Governor Swain in the New York
Public Library, written during the fifties to George
Bancroft and to Benson J. Lossing, contain many
references to the Davie manuscript and other origi-
nal documents on the Mecklenburg Declaration
then in his possession. 2 He stated repeatedly that
there was no evidence satisfactory to his mind
"that the papers purporting to be Mecklenburg
declarations are true copies of the original record ";
and that the Davie paper was written in September,
1 James C. Welling in Mag. of Amer. Hist., March, 1889, xxi., 223 ;
Professor Phillips in N. Y. Evening Post, May 19, 1875, and in letters to
P. B. Means, published in 1887 in a pamphlet entitled " May, 1775" con-
taining a reprint of his article of 1853 ; Gov. Graham's Address, 87.
9 Swain to Lossing, December 20, 1851 ; to Bancroft, March 6, 1858, and
March 18, 1858. New York Public Library. Cf. Swain to H. S. Randall,
April 6, 1858, printed in Tompkins's Hi story of Mecklenburg County, ii,
53~54 from a copy in the Draper Collection.
10
146 The Mecklenburg Declaration
1800. " It was not taken from the record," he
said, " it is not shown to be a copy of a copy, or
that there was a copy extant in September, 1 800. "
" While I have never assumed to speak ex cathedra
upon this subject," he wrote in 1851, " I have
never concealed my opinions from my friends.
Wheeler and Wiley were fully apprized of them,
and the former persisted in maintaining the authen-
ticity of the paper, in despite of assurances from
me that no one of the three gentlemen to whom
his book is dedicated would sustain him. " 1 Gov-
ernor Swain changed his mind more than once as
to whether a formal declaration of independence
was ever adopted in Mecklenburg, but always
maintained that there was no document which fixed
with certainty the date of the alleged declaration ;
" nor, with the exception of a series of doggerel
verses which have recently come into my posses-
sion," he wrote Bancroft in 1858, " is there any
paper containing a direct reference to the subject
which I suppose to be of earlier date than Septem-
ber, 1800."
The certificate of the Davie copy constitutes the
last link in the chain of documentary evidence, all
proceeding from John McKnitt Alexander, which
proves that the " Mecklenburg Declaration of
Independence " is a distorted record of a true
manifesto of Mecklenburg county, clothed in lan-
guage wholly different from that of the true mani-
festo, conceived in the imperfect memory of John
1 Wheeler dedicated his History of North Carolina to Bancroft, Force
and Swain.
The Davie Copy 147
McKnitt Alexander, and written twenty-five years
after its alleged date. Alexander professed to be
only " fundamentally correct " in his " statement,"
which included the declaration and his history of it.
He said that it might not "literally correspond"
with the original records, " as all those records and
papers " had been burnt ; and he mentions no
memoranda that had been preserved. As if these
caveats were not enough to prevent misconstruction,
he was careful to certify only according to his best
" recollection and belief. " " As water in finding
its natural level can never rise higher than its
source, so the ' Mecklenburg Declaration of Inde-
pendence ' can never rise higher than its natural
level in these 'recollections' and 'beliefs' of its
original sponsor. " * In John McKnitt Alexander's
rough notes we find his reminiscences as he re-
duced them to writing before the Davie copy was
prepared the Davie paper in embyro. Upon no
other supposition can their existence be accounted
for. The internal evidence that Alexander's notes
were written in 1800 or later without the aid of the
records, which were destroyed in April of that year,
the internal evidence that the manuscript in an un-
known handwriting was not transcribed from those
records, the similarity and identical features of the
two papers and the corrections in one of them in-
dicating that the anonymous paper was a revision
of the notes, the significant fact that John McKnitt
Alexander attached these papers together, and,
finally, Alexander's own admission that the Davie
1 Mag. of Am. Hist., March, 1889, xxi., 224.
148 The Mecklenburg Declaration
copy, dated September 3, 1800, and literally the
same as the paper in an unknown handwriting, was
written from memory, prove beyond the shadow of
a doubt that his notes were the basis of the other
papers. These documents tell the story of the
transfiguration of the Mecklenburg resolves of May
31, 1775, seen through the prismatic glass of Alex-
ander's imperfect memory, into the " Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence."
We have no reason to believe that John McKnitt
Alexander refreshed his memory of the resolutions
which he understood to be a declaration of inde-
pendence within thirteen years before the loss of
the records. He states in his notes that he sent a
copy to Dr. Hugh Williamson in i 787 or sooner.
Governor Montfort Stokes recollected in 1831 to
have seen this copy in Dr. Williamson's possession
in the year 1 793. 1 Nothing short of infallibility
could have enabled Governor Stokes to identify the
phraseology of a paper which he saw but once,
thirty-eight years previously. His testimony proves
no more than that he saw a paper of similar tenor
to that of the Davie copy, for John McKnitt
Alexander himself claimed to reproduce but its
substance. There was no issue as to the paper
adopted in Mecklenburg in May, 1775, when Gov-
ernor Stokes gave his testimony, nor until Peter
Force published the May 3ist resolves in 1838.
Williamson's History of North Carolina 2 is silent
concerning a declaration of independence by Meck-
1 See State Pamphlet, Preface,
Published in 1812.
The Davie Copy 149
lenburg county, for the good reason that he was
favored with a copy of the records before they had
been burnt. Williamson says in his preface that he
proposed to bring his work down to the year 1790
and had collected materials for that purpose, but,
"considering that the history of the province may
be acceptable to many people who are less solicit-
ous about late military transactions," he desisted
from his plan. The history proper closes with
the dispute between Governor Martin and the
Assembly, culminating in the dissolution of the
Assembly by the governor in 1774 ; but the re-
flections of the author on the political situation of
the colony at that time, in which he touches upon
"the desire of independence and self-government"
41 when people are separated by nature from other
nations and other governments," offered a most
appropriate but neglected opportunity to say a
word of the " gigantic step of its county of Meck-
lenburg, " if John McKnitt Alexander furnished
him with anything but the paper of May 31, 1775.
The stoppage of his narrative did not prevent
Williamson from recording statistics of exports
during the years 1785 to 1788, the discovery of a
subterranean wall in Rowan county as late as 1 794,
and the introduction of machines for spinning cot-
ton in the year 1811. Williamson died in New
York May 22, 1819. The documents which he
collected for the continuation of his work are
supposed to have been burnt in a warehouse in
Pearl Street, New York, in the great fire of I835. 1
1 Professor Phillips, in the N. Y. Evening Post, May 19, 1875.
150 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Like the critics of later days, John McKnitt
Alexander no doubt believed when he last saw
the records of the Mecklenburg committee that the
May 3ist resolves were a declaration of independ-
ence. In 1800, their provisional character, obscured
by the permanent separation from Great Britain
by the Declaration of July 4, 1776, which made
Mecklenburg an independent county dating from
May 31, 1775, had passed completely from his
mind. Of their form, as we see from his notes,
he had dim recollections. A reproduction from
mere memory of a document whose import he
misunderstood when he had the original before him
years previously and whose phraseology he had
forgotten, prepared at a time when the document
was remembered by many as a declaration of inde-
pendence, and originating in a patriotic effort to
preserve from oblivion the worthy sentiments and
actions of himself and his neighbors, could hardly
be expected to be anything but an exaggerated
travesty of the original. His rough notes were
probably the result of his first attempt to recall
what was done in Charlotte in May, 1775, after
the loss of the records. He seems to have had
no intention, when he sat down to write them, of
attempting to reproduce the phraseology of the
document which he understood to be a declaration
of independence. The substance of the document
was clearly all that his failing memory could supply.
The substance of the Mecklenburg resolves of
May 31, 1775, the portion which approaches a
declaration of independence, and the portion with
The Davie Copy
15*
which Alexander's recollections are identified, is
contained in the preamble and first five resolves :
May 3 ist Resolves.
Whereas .... we conceive that
all laws and commissions con-
firmed by, or derived from the
authority of the King or Par-
liament, are annulled and vaca-
ted, and the former civil con-
stitution of these colonies, for
the present, wholly suspended.
I. That all commissions, civil
and military, heretofore grant-
ed by the Crown, to be exer-
cised in these colonies, are
null and void, and the con-
stitution of each particular
colony wholly suspended.
II. That the Provincial Con-
gress of each province, under
the direction of the great Con-
tinental Congress, is invested
with all legislative and execu-
tive powers within their re-
spective provinces ; [2] and
that no other legislative or
executive power, does, or can
exist, at this time, in any of
these colonies.
III. As all former laws are
now suspended in this pro-
vince, and the Congress have
not yet provided others, we
judge it necessary, for the
better preservation of good
Alexander's Notes.
ist We (the County) by a
Solemn and awfull vote, Dis-
solved [or abjured] our allegi-
ance to King George & the
British Nation.
2d. Declared ourselves a free
& independent people, [2]
having a right and capable to
govern ourselves(as a part of
North Carolina.)
3d. In order to have laws as
a rule of life for our future
Government We formed a
Code of laws ; by adopting
our former wholesome laws.
i5 2 The Mecklenburg Declaration
order, to form certain rules
and regulations for the inter-
nal government of this county,
until laws shall be provided
for us by the Congress.
IV. That the inhabitants of
this county do .... chuse a
Colonel and other military
officers, who shall hold and
excercise their several powers
by virtue of this choice, and
independent of the Crown of
Great Britain, and former
constitution of this province.
V. That for the better pre-
servation of the peace and ad-
ministration of justice, each
of those [milita] companies
do chuse from their own body,
two discreet freeholders, who
shall be empowered to
decide and determine all
matters of controversy,
[and by the succeeding re-
solves to be members of the
Committee of Safety].
VI-XX.
4th. And as there was then
no Officers civil or Millitary
in our County
We Decreed that every Mil-
litia officer in s'd County
should hold and occupy his
former commission and Grade
And that every member
present, of this Committee
shall henceforth [act] as a
Justice of the Peace in the
Character of a Committee
M[an, to] hear and determine
all Controversies agreeable to
s'd laws [and to preserve]
peace Union & harmony in
s'd County and to use every
[exertion to] spread the Elec-
trial fire of freedom among
ourselves & u
5th. &c. &c. many other laws
& ordinances were then
ma[de].
Resolve XVIII of May 31, 1775, which made all
the others defeasible by the possible abandonment
on the part of the British Government of its arbi-
trary policy toward the colonies, is among the
"other laws and ordinances" which John McKnitt
Alexander could not remember. This is far less
The Davie Copy 153
remarkable than the failure of the New York and
Boston printers of 1775 to notice it. They copied
the preamble and first four resolves and sum-
marized or omitted to mention the other sixteen.
Without this limitation, with the word " dissolved "
substituted for " suspended ," and the qualification
as to time omitted in the preamble and Resolves
I and II, the subject-matter of the first five resolves
and the order in which each appears in the series
agree " fundamentally " with Alexander's notes.
In their descriptions of the document of May 31,
1775, Governor Martin, writing in 1775, shortly
after reading the document, and John McKnitt
Alexander, writing from memory in 1800, failed, as
so many others have done, to note any of these
essential features by which it fell short of a decla-
ration of independence. Believing, as he did, that
the document was a formal declaration of indepen-
dence, Alexander's notes on the first two resolves*
which in his mind contained the declaration proper,
bear less resemblance to the true document than
the others. His reminiscences of the others neces-
sarily tended to conform to this belief. Hence it is
that, while Alexander rightly recollected that the
third, fourth, and fifth resolves concerned, respect-
ively, laws, military officers, and civil officers, he
was in error as to their terms. Resolve III of
May 3 ist states that, as all former laws were
suspended, the "rules and regulations for the
internal government" which follow should be
adopted ; and Resolves IV and V order an election
of county militia officers and of two persons from
154 The Mecklenburg Declaration
each militia company to be justices of the peace
and members of a standing convention, or com-
mittee, having judical and administrative powers.
The court records of Mecklenburg show that the
old civil and criminal codes, in so far as they did
not conflict with the new regulations, continued to
be the "rule of life" for the people of the county.
They also show that seven alleged " signers "of the
Mecklenburg Declaration continued to preside in
the county court, that no new justices were elected
to this court, and that the court met on the third
Tuesday 1 of January, April, July, and October, in
the courthouse in Charlotte the very dates and
place provided by the May 3ist resolves for the
meetings of the new judicial and administrative
body. No doubt the majority of the old committee
men and military officers were re-elected. This
fact, with the actual retention of British laws, and
the natural inference by John McKnitt Alexander
that independent Mecklenburg county could not
have been left without laws and civil and military
officers pending the establishment of a "more
general and organized government " in the province,
and an election of new county officers, gave him
a very erroneous idea of the third, fourth, and fifth
resolves of May 31, 1 775 ; but near enough the truth
to make it certain that he was struggling to recall
them when he wrote his notes. He concluded that
the committee men " formed a Code of laws by adopt-
Thursday appears in place of Tuesday in the resolves in the South-Caro-
lina Gazette And Country Journal of June 13, 1775- This is a misprint, as
will be seen from both the North-Carolina Gazette of June 16, 1775, and
Governor Martin's transcript of the resolves in the Cape Fear Mercury,
The Davie Copy 155
ing our former wholesome laws," transferred the mil-
itary officers in a body from the royal to the new
government, and then, after the fashion of a French
coup d'etat, declared themselves justices of the
peace and members of the new committee a pro-
ceeding not at all in keeping with the character of
this body of sober, law-abiding, Scotch-Irish Presby-
terians. Resolves VI to XX concern, for the most
part, the duties of the new committee men and
other county officers, and military matters. No one
would be likely to remember the details. Alexander
merely noted that " many other laws and ordinances
were then made."
An attempt to reconstruct the " Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence" from his notes prob-
ably suggested itself to John McKnitt Alexander
when writing his impressions of the last of the five
resolves that he regarded as the most important,
the greater part of which resolve he wrote in the
present tense. It may be observed that it was not
because he remembered the phraseology of the fifth
resolve of the supposed declaration (the fourth in
his notes) that he wrote it in the present tense, for,
if so, we must conclude that he entirely forgot the
striking expressions of the resolutions containing
the declaration itself and they are very striking
while a resolve respecting the appointment and
duties of civil officers, the longest of the series, was
indelibly fixed in his memory. There are indica-
tions that Alexander entrusted to some person of
greater literary skill than himself the work of pre-
paring from his notes a more fitting memorial of
156 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the " Declaration of Independence" and events
associated with it. We have seen that corrections in
the manuscript in the unknown handwriting made
by the writer show that it was to some extent an
original composition. How much of it was com-
posed by the anonymous writer will probably never
be known. It seems hardly possible that the author
of the halting, ungrammatical, yet labored, notes
could have prepared the second paper, which evinces
an incomparably higher degree of literary ability,
although the two papers have a similarity of style.
Moreover, Alexander's notes invariably refer to the
body that declared independence as a " Committee "
and to its members as " Committee Men," while the
other paper speaks of a " delegation " and " dele-
gates. " It is true that Alexander used the term
"delegation" in his certificate to the Davie copy, but
he could consistently use no other when certifying
a copy of the paper in an unknown handwriting.
Furthermore, the material part of the last of the
five resolutions, which the unknown writer copied
nearly word for word from Alexander's notes, is
repeated by him immediately after the resolution,
as appears below, and the term " Committee-man "
is enclosed in quotation marks, both of which facts
would seem to show that he did not comprehend
the meaning of the term. The unknown writer also
used the word " unanimously," instead of " Nem.
Con," which appears in the notes. If this paper was
prepared by some person other than John McKnitt
Alexander, that person learned from Alexander
facts which are not stated in the notes. Whether
The Davie Copy 157
the corrections, the superior literary merit, and the
words different from those used in the notes to
express the same thing prove merely that it is a
transcript, with slight changes made by the person
who transcribed it, of a second draft of the notes
prepared by Alexander himself, or that this paper
is the original second draft, is a matter of minor im-
portance, since we know that it is based on the
notes.
The genesis of the so-called Davie copy of the
Mecklenburg Declaration, which for thirty-four
years wore all the honors of a genuine and authentic
document, which was pointed out as such to the aged
men who were asked to say that they heard it pro-
claimed in Charlotte on May 20, 1775, which was
affirmed to be such by the Legislature of North
Carolina in 1831, and which still has champions
who seem to be ignorant of John McKnitt Alex-
ander's certificate to the manuscript which he gave
to General Davie, is demonstrated by placing it
side by side with Alexander's notes :
Alexander's Notes. The Reconstructed Document.
i. That whosoever directly
or indirectly abetted, or in any
way, form, or manner, coun-
tenanced the unchartered and
dangerous invasion of our
rights, as claimed by G. brit-
ain is an enemy to this Coun-
ty to America and to the
inherent and inaliable rights
of man.
158 The Mecklenburg Declaration
I s . 1 We (the County) by a
abjured
Solemn and awfull vote, Dis-
solved our allegiance to King
George & the British Nation.
2? Declared ourselves a free
& independent people, having
a right and capable to govern
ourselves (as a part of North
Carolina).
3? In order to have laws as
a rule of life for our future
Government We formed a
Code of laws ; by adopting
our former wholesome laws.
2 We the Citizens of Meek-
do de
lenburg County are- hereby ab~
the
solved f*em political bands
which have connected us with
the Mother Country, and here-
by absolve ourselves from
all allegiance to the British
Crown, and abjure all polit-
ical connection, contract, or
association
dependence with that nation
who have wantonly trampled
on our rights and liberties
and inhumanly shed the in-
nocent blood of American
patriots at Lexington.
3 We do hereby declare
ourselves a free and inde-
pendent people, are, and of
right ought to be, a sovereign
and self-governing Associa-
tion, under the control of no
power other than that of our
God and the General Gov-
ernment of the gen congress
to the maintainance of which
independance civil & religious
we solemnly pledge to each
other, our mutual co-opera-
tion, our lives, our fortunes,
and our most sacred honor.
4 As we now acknowledge
the existance & controul of
no law or legal officer, civil
or military, within this county,
we do hereby ordain and
The Davie Copy
then
4* And as there was ^ no
Officers civil or Millitary in
our County
We Decreed that every
Millitia officer in s? County
should hold and occupy his
former commission and Grade
And that every member pre-
sent, of this Committee shall
henceforth [torn] as a Justice
of the Peace in the Character
of a Committee M \torn\ hear
and determine all Controver-
sies agreeable to s? laws
\iorn\ peace Union & harmony
in s? County and to use every
\torn\ spread the Electrial fire
of freedom among ourselves
& u \torn\.
the
5* -M &? &? many other
laws & ordinances were then
ma [torn].
adopt, as a rule of life, all
each and every of our former
laws, wherein, nevertheless,
the Crown of great britain
never can
nevertheless can & ought be
considered as holding rights,
privileges, immunities, or au-
thority therein.
5 It is also further de-
creed, that all, each and every
military officer in this county
is hereby reinstated to his
former command and author-
ity, he acting conformably to
these regulations. And that
every member present of this
be
delegation shall henceforth aet
civil officer e* viz s
as-^ a Justice of the Peace,
in the character of a "Com-
mittee-man ", to hear issue
process, hear and determine
all matters of controversy,
according to said adopted
laws, and to preserve peace,
and union, and harmony, in
said county, and to use every
exertion to spread the love of
country and fire of freedom
throughout America, until a
more general and organized
government be established in
this State province.
A selection from the mem-
shall
bers present was constituted a
160 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Committee of public safety
for s? County.
A number of bye laws were
also added, merely to protect
the association from confu-
sion, and to regulate their
general conduct as citizens.
The design of the author of the paper in an un-
known handwriting, whoever he may have been,
was apparently to construct from the notes a decla-
ration of independence as "flaming," as Jefferson
called it, as he could make it. Of the four resolu-
tions recollected by Alexander, the last two form
substantially the concluding resolutions of the reha-
bilitated document. Its fifth and last resolution, the
longest in the series, is in great part word for word
as it appears in Alexander's notes. These two
resolutions concerned laws and county officers and
required little original work by the unknown writer.
But the subject-matter of the first two offered so
attractive a field for the writer's imagination and
rhetoric that they were extended into three resolu-
tions and altered almost beyond recognition. Some
of the most striking and best known phrases of the
Declaration of July 4, 1776, were introduced into
the reconstructed document. At that early day,
the phraseology of the Declaration of Independence
was well known, and the writer of this paper could
find no other words for the declaration of Mecklen-
burg. These three short resolutions contain such
expressions of Jefferson's immortal document as
" unalienable Rights," "dissolve the political bands
which have connected," " Absolved from all Allegi-
The Davie Copy 161
ance to the British Crown, " "all political connexion,"
" are, and of Right, ought to be," and " we mutually
pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honour." None of these expressions are to be
found in John McKnitt Alexander s notes. It was
perceived as early as 1819 that they were too nu-
merous and peculiar in structure to be accidental
coincidences. "Either these resolutions are a
plagiarism from Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of In-
dependence," said John Adams, 1 "or Mr. Jefferson's
Declaration of Independence is a plagiarism from
those resolutions. I could as soon believe that the
dozen flowers of Hydrangea, now before my eyes,
were the work of chance, as that the Mecklenburg
resolutions and Mr. Jefferson's Declaration were
not derived the one from the other." For many
years the contestants in the acrimonious controversy
as to whether Jefferson was guilty of plagiarism
were unaware that Richard Henry Lee is the
author of nearly all of these phrases upon which
the accusation was founded. 2
In treating the genesis of the manuscript in an
unknown handwriting we have assumed that Dr.
Joseph McKnitt Alexander was truthful in his cer-
tificate to the effect that he found it with his father's
notes in the condition shown by the reproductions,
that he did not recognize the handwriting, that two
corrections on it were made by his father, and that
it was "perfectly the same" as the Davie paper as
far as the Davie paper was preserved. In the ab-
1 Adams to William Bentley, August 21, 1819 ; IVorks^ x., 383.
9 Lee's resolution for independence, July 2, 1776.
II
162 The Mecklenburg Declaration
sence of the original Davie paper in John McKnitt
Alexander's handwriting the often repeated charges
of fraud and forgery against the younger Alexander
must be considered. These charges were privately
maintained by no less a person than Professor
Charles Phillips, who enjoyed the privilege of ex-
amining the originals of all these documents when
they were in the possession of Governor Swain. In
the volume in the Bancroft Collection which con-
tains the transcripts reproduced above, and im-
mediately before them, is inserted a letter of Henry
S. Randall to Bancroft, dated February 7, 1859, en-
closing a copy of a letter written by Professor
Phillips to Randall from the University of North
Carolina under date of April 15, 1858. Professor
Phillips says that when he wrote his article for
the North Carolina University Magazine of May,
1853, he felt, like Governor Swain, "that all of
the story about the 2oth of May could not stand
before cool and fair criticism, and especially that
the Davie paper, in either form, would not be en-
dorsed by any proper jury in the land." " To
me," he writes "the assertion, or insinuation, that
Jefferson ever borrowed from Mecklenburg is just
ridiculous, and so it is to Gov. Swain and many
others of our best informed men in N. C. Had old
McN. Alexander's son been as honorable as was his
father, we never would have heard of such an as-
sertion. The condition of the originals in our pos-
session here, the diversity of hand writing, the fre-
quent interlineations, erasures etc. show that the
younger Alexander tried to set forth a poem in
The Davie Copy 163
Alexandrian measured But the old man's honesty
(see p. 1 75 of that pamphlet) 2 doubtless was sadly
in the young man's way. The truth is, I judge, not
far from this. The son had not long come home
from Princeton College ; the father's house and all
the records were burnt; the father and other sur-
vivors felt that some memento of their deeds in '75
must be preserved. So the son sat down to repro-
duce the Declaration of Mecklenburg, but was
mistaken as to date and form. The date was to be
gotten only from memory ; the form as we see, was
influenced by the then well known General decla-
ration." The originals referred to by Professor
Phillips are obviously those from which the tran-
scripts found with his letter were made. This is
confirmed by a note in Randall's Life of Thomas
Jefferson?
Professor Phillips appears to have believed that
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander prepared under his
father's guidance the narrative and resolutions
contained in the manuscript in an unknown hand-
writing ; that after his father's death he destroyed
1 Randall says in his letter to Bancroft that he added the underscoring
when copying Prof. Phillips' letter.
8 The reference is to the certificate to the Davie paper, printed in the
North Carolina University Magazine, May, 1853, ii, 175.
8 Randall says (iii, 574): "We are informed by one who has often
seen Mr. Alexander's manuscripts on this subject that they exhibit a diver-
sity of hand-writing, frequent interlineations, erasures, etc. Whether this
applies to the resolutions themselves we are not specially apprised, but
suppose our informant intended such application. " The following extract
from his letter to Bancroft may account for Bancroft's silence: " As I re-
marked, Prof. P's letter is not marked confidential, but you will of course
take good care that he is not brought into danger by his his [sic] frankness..
The publication of his remarks would probably cost him his professorship." 1
1 64 The Mecklenburg Declaration
a copy of the certificate to the Davie paper which
stated that they were written from memory, and
that he altered his father's notes and the manu-
script in an unknown handwriting so as to make
them say that his father acted as clerk of the meet-
ing to which they refer, and that Colonel Adam
Alexander issued the order for the meeting. Pro-
fessor Phillips inferred that Dr. Alexander had a
copy of his father's certificate to the Davie paper,
from its resemblance to his certificate to the docu-
ment published in the Raleigh Register in 1819,
which certificate purported to state facts which he
found " mentioned on file." " He told the truth
about it," wrote Professor Phillips in 1879,* "but
not the whole truth, and so conveyed to his readers
something besides the truth." Such authorities as
Draper, Goodloe, and Welling have likewise al-
leged or insinuated that the younger Alexander
made an improper condensation of a certificate like
that appended to the Davie paper. 2 But, if their
suspicions be well founded, why did he not also
suppress and destroy the certificate to the Davie
paper itself, which was in his possession during
nearly all the period from the date of its discovery
until 1830? The "Alexandrian measure" in the
story of the Mecklenburg Declaration was prob-
ably the main cause of Professor Phillips's distrust
of Dr. Alexander. He no doubt assumed that
John McKnitt Alexander could not have fancied
1 Phillips to P. B. Means, May 20, 1879, in " May, 1775" 27.
* Draper's manuscript work ; Goodloe, in N. Y. Herald, May 8, 1875 ;
Welling, in the Mag. of Amer. Hist., xxi., 223-224. Cf. Joseph Wallis,
in the National Intelligencer, August 13, 1857.
The Davie Copy 165
that he, instead of Ephraim Brevard, was secretary
of a meeting on so momentous a subject, and that
Lieutenant-Colonel Adam Alexander instead of
Colonel Thomas Polk, issued the order for it.
The parts taken by Brevard, Polk, and Abraham
Alexander are established by the personal testi-
mony of spectators at the meeting, which testimony
we have reserved for critical analysis. It is difficult
to conjecture what might have been the foundation
for John McKnitt Alexander's reminiscences, but
it cannot on that account be denied that when he
wrote his notes in 1800 he believed that he had
acted as secretary of the meeting which was in his
thoughts. He is known to have been an active
participant in that meeting and secretary and chair-
man of similar meetings of the period, 1 and it is
very probable that he succeeded Brevard as clerk
of the Mecklenburg Committee of Safety. Gov-
ernor Swain's theory was that there was a pre-
liminary meeting which agreed upon the general
principles formulated on May 31, 1775, and that
John McKnitt Alexander was secretary. 2 Strong
evidence that Alexander often stated that he had
been secretary of the famous meeting is the belief
of William B. Alexander, brother of " J. McKnitt,"
that his father had acted as such, 3 and the testi-
mony given after the fact had been called in ques-
tion by two such intelligent witnesses to the meeting
as General Joseph Graham and Rev. Humphrey
1 Captain Jack's certificate, and Col. Rec. of N. C., x., 8700.
* Swain to B. J. Lossing, December 20, 1851, Bancroft Coll.
* Ante, p. 2.
1 66 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Hunter, who were his neighbors and friends. With
respect to the condition of the original manuscripts,
which Professor Phillips thought to be proof of a
posthumous introduction of "Alexandrian measure,'*
it may be said that the transcript of John McKnitt
Alexander's notes shows clearly that his initials
and the word * 'secretary" were written later than the
context ; but no diversity of handwriting is noted
by the copyist. It is also evident that if the copy-
ist noted even the most conspicuous erasures and
it seems to have been his purpose to note every-
thing of that nature the allusions to Colonel
Adam Alexander and John McKnitt Alexander
in the manuscript in an unknown handwriting, and
to the former in the notes, originally belonged to
those papers. Professor Phillips's case cannot be
proved by such flimsy evidence as this.
The reproduction of the manuscript in an un-
known handwriting makes it well-nigh certain that
if John McKnitt Alexander never recollected that
he was secretary of a meeting of May 20, 1775, he
never saw that manuscript, and the Davie paper
contained something very different in form, perhaps
the rough notes, for the manuscript in an unknown
handwriting bore internal evidence of original com-
position by the writer. Professor Phillips, however,
arrived at another conclusion. This would seem to
indicate that he did not examine the manuscript
carefully. His letter to Randall shows that he be-
lieved that it was a copy of a paper prepared by
the younger Alexander under his father's direction
and that it was once in John McKnitt Alexander's
The Davie Copy 167
possession and was altered after his death. In his
contribution to the North Carolina University
Magazine of May, 1853, Professor Phillips said
with reference to the resolutions of May 20, 1775 :
"The * Davie copy* was first published in the
Raleigh Register in April, 1819, and it is so named
because the last two of its resolutions were found
on a mutilated manuscript among the papers of the
late General W. R. Davie." He did not say how
much of the narrative in the Davie manuscript
was preserved in 1853, and copied into his article
nothing but the certificate ; but in a letter written
twenty-six years afterwards he erroneously stated
that the manuscript was entire when Governor
Swain first saw it. 1 His letter to Randall and the
manner in which the Raleigh Registers copy of
the resolutions, prepared by Dr. Alexander from
the manuscript in an unknown handwriting, are
treated in his article in connection with the certifi-
cate to the Davie paper, evince his belief that, with
the exception of the "Alexandrian measure," the
Davie paper originally contained what appears in
the manuscript in an unknown handwriting. But
the traces of original work by the unknown writer
are so discernible even in his last two resolutions
as to lead to no other conclusion than that the two
papers could not have been identical with respect to
these resolutions, as Professor Phillips says they
were, if the unknown writer's was of later date than
the Davie paper and never in the elder Alexander's
hands. It is indeed remarkable that the resolutions
1 Phillips to P. B. Means, May 20, 1879.
i68 The Mecklenburg Declaration
missing from the mutilated Davie paper were the
very ones which contain most of the expressions
borrowed from Jefferson's Declaration, and that one
of those which remained, the last, was the one most
like its parallel in John McKnitt Alexander's notes.
We have seen, however, that the last resolution of
the notes and the last of the anonymous paper might
be expected to be found resembling each other more
closely than any others.
A week before the date of Professor Phillips's
letter to Randall, Governor Swain wrote Randall
in answer to a request for a statement of his views
on the Mecklenburg Declaration, or permission to
publish his letters to Bancroft. 1 As the subject was
soon to be treated by himself and Dr. Francis L.
Hawks in the latter's History of North Carolina,
he did not feel at liberty to comply. With respect
to the original Davie paper he wrote:
You remark that the main question, so far as Mr. Jefferson
is concerned, is this : " Is the Alexander copy of the Mecklen-
burg Resolutions genuine?" The paper is unquestionably genu-
ine. I have it before me, in the well-known hand-writing of
John McKnitt Alexander. But what is it? It is not the record
of the Mecklenburg Committee that perished in the fire which
consumed Mr. Alexander's home in April, 1800; and this paper
bears date in the following September. It is not a transcript,
therefore, of the original record. If it be the copy of a copy,
the inquiry presents itself, of that copy: How authenticated?
Where, when, and by whom taken? Does it purport to be a
copy, or is it simply upon the face of it the most accurate
narrative which Mr. Alexander's memory could supply of the
transactions to which it relates ?
1 Swain to Randall, Chapel Hill, April 6, 1858, in Tompkins, History
of MeckUnburg County, ii, 53-54; copied from the Draper MSS.
The Davie Copy 169
The results of the investigations made by the
North Carolina legislative committee of 1830-31,
published in July, 1831, in the State Pamphlet,
afford ample proof that as much of the mutilated
Davie paper as remained when it was unearthed,
which seems to have been more than Professor
Phillips found in 1853, agreed in every respect with
the manuscript in an unknown handwriting. The
report of the committee strangely omitted to men-
tion John McKnitt Alexander's certificate to the
Davie paper. This has led some to believe that
the committee never saw the original paper, and
that it took the younger Alexander's word for its
statements about the paper. But the editors of the
State Pamphlet reprinted under " A" the document
published in the Raleigh Register of April 30, 1819,
and under "B" this certificate and note :
State of North Carolina,
Mecklenburg County.
I, Samuel Henderson, do hereby certify that the paper an-
nexed was obtained by me from Maj. William Davie in its
present situation, soon after the death of his father, Gen. Wil-
liam R. Davie, and given to Doct. Joseph McKnitt by me. In
searching for some particular paper, I came across this, and,
knowing the hand-writing of John McKnitt Alexander, took
it up and examined it. Maj. Davie said to me (when asked
how it became torn) his sisters had torn it, not knowing what
it was.
Given under my hand this 25th Nov., 1830.
SAM. HENDERSON.
NOTE. To this certificate of Doct. Henderson is annexed
the copy of the paper A, originally deposited by John McKnitt
Alexander in the hands of Gen. Davie^ whose name seems to
have been mistaken by Mr. Jefferson for that of Gov.
170 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Caswell. See preface, pages 5, and 6. This paper is somewhat
torn, but is entirely legible, and constitutes the " solemn and
positive proof of authenticity " which Mr. Jefferson required,
and which would doubtless have been satisfactory, had it been
submitted to him.
Dr. Henderson's certificate refers to the original
Davie paper as the one to which it was annexed,
and the note's statement that it is annexed to the
"copy of the paper A" must be construed to have
reference to that copy of " A. " This is confirmed by
Governor Stokes, who says in the preface to the
State Pamphlet, written for him by Governor Swain:
44 this identical copy, known by the writer of these
remarks to be in the handwriting of John McKnitt
Alexander, one of the secretaries of the Mecklen-
burg meeting, is now in the Executive Office of
this State. (See Dr. Henderson's certificate, B.)"
Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander's certificate to his
father's notes and the manuscript in an unknown
handwriting, like Dr. Henderson's, is dated Meck-
lenburg county, November 25, 1830, and both were
no doubt sent to the legislative committee on
that day with the documents to which they refer.
Alexander said in his certificate : " As to the full
sheet being in an unknown hand write, it matters
not who may have thus copyed the original record.
by comparing the copy deposited with Genl. Davie
they two will be found so perfectly the same, so far as
his is preserved^ that no imposition is possible
the entire sheet is most probably a copy taken long
since from the original for some person, corrected by
Jno. McKnitt Alexander, and now sent on." Since
the committee said it examined all documents which
The Davie Copy 171
were accessible, we must believe that it was after
making the comparison thus invited that it con-
cluded that the Davie paper originally contained all
that appears in the manuscript in an unknown hand-
writing ; and the honesty of Dr. Joseph McKnitt
Alexander can no longer be questioned. The cor-
rections, interlineations, and erasures in the manu-
script in an unknown handwriting are in keeping
with its character as a draft of the Davie copy, but
certainly out of place in a paper fabricated to pass
as a transcript of an original record.
The story of the 2oth of May, 1775, was told by
John McKnitt Alexander to many persons after he
wrote his rough notes in 1800. Any evidence that
this date was known as the date of the Mecklenburg
Declaration before the publication made in 1819 is
thus accounted for. We have seen that it is con-
firmed by no evidence up to the time of Alexander's
writing. It has been suggested that he recollected
that date because May 2Oth, Old Style, is the same
as May 3ist, New Style, and that the Julian calen-
dar, which was abolished in England in 1752, may
have been used by some persons in the frontier
county of Mecklenburg as late as 1775, which fact
Alexander forgot. At some time after the Davie
copy was written Alexander related the story of the
Mecklenburg Declaration to Judge Duncan Came-
ron, an eminent North Carolina jurist. He in-
formed Cameron that he had given a copy of the
declaration to General Davie, and said, " The docu-
ment is safe." 1 This incident has led some to be-
1 Gov. Graham's Address, 51; Dr. Hawks' s Lecture 85.
i7 2 The Mecklenburg Declaration
lieve that the Davie paper was an extract from
an original record. On June i, 1809, at the com-
mencement exercises of Sugar Creek Academy,
three miles from Charlotte, a pupil recited an ad-
dress containing a paragraph relating to the Meck-
lenburg Declaration which was evidently prepared
from the account in the manuscript in an unknown
handwriting, perhaps by Alexander himself. This
is the address published in the Raleigh Minerva of
August 10, 1 809,* to which Dr. Joseph McKnitt
Alexander refers in his certificate to the manuscript
in an unknown handwriting. He no doubt found
the newspaper among his father's papers. Sugar
Creek Academy was conducted by the Rev. Samuel
C. Caldwell, a son-in-law of John McKnitt Alex-
ander, and his pupil, the youthful orator, is believed
1 A copy of this newspaper is now in possession of a family descended
from its publisher, William Boylan. I am indebted to Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr.,
for a full copy of the address printed therein. The following is the refer-
ence to the Mecklenburg Declaration :
"On the igth of May 1776, a day sacredly exulting to every Mecklen-
burg bosom, two delegates duly authorised from every militia company in
this county met in Charlotte. After a cool and deliberate investigation of
the causes and extent of our differences with G. Britain, and taking a view
of the probable result; pledging their all in support of their rights and
liberties ; they solemnly entered into and published a full and determined
declaration of Independence, renouncing forever all allegiance, depen-
dence on or connection with Great Britain ; dissolved all judicial and mili-
tary establishments emanating from the British crown ; established others
on principles correspondent with their declaration, which went into imme-
diate operation : All which were transmitted to Congress by express, and
probably expedited the general declaration of Independence. May we ever
act worthy of such predecessors." A comparison of this passage with the
historical note in the manuscript in an unknown handwriting shows that the
facts it states were derived from that note. A foot-note to the address says
that, as it was not " first intended for publication, extracts were not
noted."
The Davie Copy 173
to have been James Wallis, l son of the Rev. James
Wallis, another son-in-law of John McKnitt Alex-
ander. The Rev. James Wallis was at the head of
a school at Providence settlement, near Charlotte. 2
His son Joseph of Chapel Hill, Texas, said in a let-
ter published in the National Intelligencer of Au-
gust 13, 1857, that he remembered seeing his father
stamp on Williamson's History of North Carolina
because it did not contain a carefully prepared ac-
count of the Mecklenburg Declaration by John Mc-
Knitt Alexander. A former student at the school
of the Rev. James Wallis informed William A.
Graham in 1875 that he heard John McKnitt Alex-
ander, on the occasion of a visit of a month at Provi-
dence in 1813, relate the circumstances of the declar-
ation of May 20, I775- 3 John McKnitt Alexander
died J uly i o, 1817. During the last five or six years
of his life he was nearly blind and very infirm. 4
Thus through John McKnitt Alexander did the
myth of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Indepen-
dence, which had its rise in the Revolutionary
period, gain wider credence in Mecklenburg county,
and thus was the way paved for the unanimity with
which men accepted the document published in 1819
as genuine and authentic.
1 Geo. W. Graham : The Mecklenburg Declaration, 33-35.
a Our Living and Our Dead, iii, 193 ; Foote's Sketches of North Carolina
248, 250.
8 Gov. Graham's Address, 51-52.
4 Geo. W. Graham : The Mecklenburg Declaration, 114 ; copied from
Lyman C. Draper's manuscript work on the Mecklenburg Declaration.
CHAPTER X
THE MARTIN AND GARDEN COPIES
RECENT advocates of the authenticity of the
Mecklenburg Declaration admit that the Davie
copy was written from memory in 1800 by John
McKnitt Alexander, but claim that it is " fundamen-
tally correct," as Alexander certified it to be. The
authentic copy, they argue, is to be found in
Franois Xavier Martin's History of North Caro-
lina, published in New Orleans in 1829, and in the
second series of Alexander Garden's Anecdotes of the
American Revolution, published in Charleston, S. C.,
in 1828. It is in form an emendation, with an ad-
ditional resolution, of the series published in 1819^
or Davie copy. Having seen from John McKnitt
Alexander's rough notes that he had no recollection
of the phraseology of the document, whatever it was,
which he understood to be a declaration of inde-
pendence, and knowing that the Davie copy was
constructed from those notes, we might be justified
in dismissing without inquiry a paper which is for
the most part literally the same as the Davie copy.
But the testimony of Frangois Xavier Martin is
cited to prove that he obtained his copy before
1800, the year in which the Davie copy was written.
Although Martin's history appeared ten years
174
The Martin and Garden Copies 175
after the resolutions were published in the Raleigh
Register, the author states in his preface that his
work was written between 1791 and 1809, when he
was a resident of North Carolina. In 1809 he was
appointed a Federal judge in Mississippi, and a
year later transferred to Louisiana. He had hoped,
according to his preface, to resume the work he
began in North Carolina, but, because of ill health
and the demands of public duties upon his time,
"The determination has been taken," he said, "to
put the work immediately to press in the condition
it was when it reached New Orleans : this has pre-
vented any use being made of Williamson's History
of North Carolina [published in 1812], a copy of
which did not reach the writer's hands till after his
arrival in Louisiana." In his lecture before the
New York Historical Society in 1852, the Rev.
Francis L. Hawks testified from his conversations
with Judge Martin that Martin obtained the Meck-
lenburg resolutions " in manuscript, from the west-
ern part of North Carolina, and procured them, as
he did most of his other materials, before the year
1800." 1 In his address at Charlotte on May 20,
1857, Dr. Hawks stated that he particularly ques-
tioned Judge Martin as to the source whence he
procured his copy, and that Martin told him " not
from Alexander," but from some one in the western
part of North Carolina, prior to 1800. Martin in-
formed him in the last year of his life, he said, that
he did not give a copy to Alexander Garden, or
even know that Garden had printed the same reso-
1 Cooke, 62-63.
.A ^
*f<y,
176 The Mecklenburg Declaration
lutions. Dr. Hawks gave more details in 1857 than
he did in 1852, but he seems to have cautiously
omitted on the second occasion to say whether
Martin told him that he obtained his copy in manu-
script or printed form. 1
While Martin may not have added any original
matter to his History of North Carolina after his
arrival in Louisiana, it can be demonstrated, we be-
lieve, that the Mecklenburg resolutions and accom-
panying narrative printed in his work were written
after 1819, and that they did not reach the hands
of Martin or Garden until 1821 or later. Martin's
preface may be accounted for as containing un-
guarded statements intended to explain the careless
manner with which the work was written and the
author's failure to make use of Williamson's history.
Martin's statements to Dr. Hawks were made in
1846, or shortly before, when Martin was in his
eighty-fifth year, totally blind, and his memory
"somewhat impaired," according to one who knew
him intimately. It is most likely that leading ques-
tions, the remoteness of the circumstance of which
he spoke, and the fact that he was the author or
compiler of thirty-seven volumes, 2 led him to con-
fuse the Mecklenburg resolutions with some other
paper. After reading the graphic sketch of Martin
in his dotage written by Charles Gayarre, 8 one can
1 The principal parts of the address were published in the Charlotte
Democrat, May 26, 1857, and reprinted in the Charlotte Daily Observer,
May 20, 1906.
3 Prof. F. M. Hubbard in the N. C. Univ. Mag., October, 1852, 350;
and H. A. Bullard's Discourse on the Life and Character of the Hon.
Francois Xavier Martin (1847), 29.
3 Fernando De Lemos. Truth and Fiction (New York, 1875).
The Martin and Garden Copies 177
scarcely hold Martin responsible for any statements
made by him at that period. If this be not the true
explanation, then Martin deliberately lied. It has
been shown that he made false statements in his
History of North Carolina, to prove a theory, when
authentic facts were actually before him. 1 In 1842,
Governor Swain wrote Martin requesting to be in-
formed when and by whom his copy of the Mecklen-
burg resolutions was furnished, but his letter was
ignored. 2
Martin's History of North Carolina is a compila-
tion which has no pretensions to anything higher
than a mere chronological arrangement of materials,
with no attempt to set forth events in any other
relation. Documents of the Revolutionary period
are copied into it nearly word for word, but without
quotation marks. The account of the Mecklen-
burg Declaration opens Chapter XI of the second
volume, the last chapter of the work. Chapter X,
which precedes, records events from the meeting of
the Continental Congress in September, 1774, to
September, 1775. The account of the Mecklenburg
Declaration should therefore have been incorpo-
rated in this chapter in order to follow the plan of
the work. No event other than the Mecklenburg
Declaration which occurred during the period cov-
ered by this chapter is recorded elsewhere. In its
position at the beginning of the succeeding chapter
1 Stephen B. Weeks : Southern Quakers and Slavery (Johns Hopkins
Univ. Studies in Hist, and Polit. Science, extra vol. xv.), 32-33,
8 Swain to B. J. Lossing, December 20, 1851. Transcript in Bancroft
MSS., N. Y. Pub. Lib.
12
1 78 The Mecklenburg Declaration
it stands wholly unrelated to the accompanying
narrative. Chapter X closes with an account of
the proceedings of the Provincial Congress, and
the last words are : " The Congress rose on the
1 9th of September" (i 775). The chronological rec-
ord is resumed in Chapter XI with an account of
the proceedings of the Continental Congress in the
same month, which opens with the statement that
"The Continental Congress met on the i3th of
September." Between these two sentences is in-
serted the account of the Mecklenburg Declaration,
which recites incidents which occurred from March,
1775, to the middle of the Revolutionary War.
The most reasonable inference from these facts is
that the latter sentence originally opened Chapter
XI, and that the account of the Mecklenburg
Declaration reached the author's hands after the
work was completed, and was inserted where it
would not necessitate any change in the text. This
is confirmed by the palpable ignorance of a declara-
tion of independence by Mecklenburg county which
Martin exhibits in the last two chapters. In
Chapter X he mentions the violent resolutions of
the Committees of Wilmington and New-Bern, but
has not a word to say about the declaration of in-
dependence which is alleged to have emanated
about the same time from Mecklenburg. In Chap-
ter XI he speaks of the receipt of the news of
the Declaration of Independence from Philadelphia
with no comment on a previous declaration by a
county of North Carolina. "Thus," he says, in
connection with the Declaration of July 4, 1776,
The Martin and Garden Copies 179
" ended the royal government in the province of
North Carolina, . . ." At the end of each of
these last two chapters Martin cites " Records.
Magazines. Gazettes" as his sources of informa-
tion.
Having seen that Martin's history bears internal
evidence which seems to show that the Mecklenburg
resolutions and accompanying narrative were in-
serted at the beginning of the last chapter after the
work was completed, we will inquire into the history
of the document which we hold to be the original
Martin copy. The Raleigh Register of Friday,
August 13, 1819, published the following editorial
announcement : " Mecklenburg Declaration of In-
dependence. The public will doubtless be gratified
to learn that Colonel WILLIAM POLK, of this city,
(who was present at the meeting in Mecklenburg
County when the Declaration of Independence was
agreed upon in May, 1775) is preparing for publi-
cation some further information in relation to that
Declaration. We understand that the Colonel will
give the names of the Delegates, and an account of
the proceedings of the Committees subsequently,
until a regular government was established ; and
correct some misstatements in the publication al-
ready made on this subject in the Register of the
3Oth of April last, and which has lately been the
subject of remark in Northern papers." Although
completed in a few days after this announcement
was made, Colonel Folk's narrative did not appear
in the Raleigh Register. It was sent by him to his
intimate friend Judge Archibald DeBow Murphey,
T8o The Mecklenburg Declaration
of Haw River, N. C., at whose instance it was pre-
pared, with the following letter * :
Raleigh, August 18, 1819.
My dear Sir,
It has not been in my power to bestow as much time on
the subjects mentioned in your memorandum of the i6th ult.
as I could have wished, and what I have written is so crudely
put together, without form, grammar and orthography, with
numberless interlineations & erasures, that I fear you will not
be able [to] glean any thing worth your observations. I have
been too much hurried in my preparation for Tennessee to
give to any thing else much of my time.
I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Biography of Gen.
Davie to give you such an account of him as would be suf-
ficiently interesting ; nor am I well enough acquainted with
the history of the establishment of the present boundary be-
tween the States of N & S Carolina to say any thing worthy
of the subject.
The History of our University : you are in possession of
all I could say on that subject.
I set out on Sunday for Nashville, to be gone I do not
know how long. I wish you, my D r Sir, much health &
happiness. very respectfully,
Will: Polk.
[Addressed : A. D. Murphey, Esq.]
This letter shows that Colonel Folk's narrative
was an original composition written at the request
of Judge Murphey, and that Judge Murphey ex-
pected to " glean " from it something worthy of his
"observations," that is, to prepare something for
publication on the subject which it treated. The
1 The original letter and narrative are in the Emmet Collection, N. Y-
Pub. Lib. (Em. 1493.) They were purchased by Dr. Thomas Addis Em-
met in 1889 from an autograph dealer of New York who obtained the bulk
of the papers left by Judge Murphey in Hillsboro, N. C.
The Martin and Garden Copies 181
Raleigh Register editorial also shows that it was
written for publication.
Colonel Folk's account of the Mecklenburg De-
claration has not been found in a complete file of
the Raleigh Register from 1819 to 1830, nor in
broken files of several other North Carolina news-
papers which are now extant. The original manu-
script, however, bears the indorsement " published "
in Judge Murphey's handwriting. It had not
been published up to February 18, 1820, for Judge
Murphey wrote Colonel Polk on that date * : " I
hope you will find time during the year to write
much more on the subjects on which you favored
me with several sheets during the last summer.
As soon as I can get my business arranged, I in-
tend to devote much of my time to these subjects
and others connected with the History of the
State." In the fall of 1820, Murphey conceived the
project of writing a great historical and scien-
tific work on North Carolina, a work for which his
scholarship, his philosophic mind, his facility in
composition, and his love for the State of North
Carolina pre-eminently qualified him. He collected
much material, consisting in a large measure of the
reminiscences of surviving Revolutionary officers,
but poverty and ill health ended his labors about
1828 and carried him to the grave in February,
1832. In January, 1821, he began to publish in
the Hillsboro Recorder the narratives of some of
1 The original letter is in the possession of the writer, who has a large
part of the correspondence of Judge Murphey and is preparing a biography
of him. See his sketch of Murphey in the Biographical History of N. C.+
iv., 340-348.
1 82 The Mecklenburg Declaration
these old men. This newspaper was established
at Hillsboro, about fifteen miles from Judge
Murphey 's home, in February, I82O, 1 previous to
which time there were no newspapers published in
North Carolina west of Raleigh for a number of
years. It appears that Colonel Folk's narrative was
published in this paper. Judge Murphey wrote
General Joseph Graham, July 20, 1821, that he
published in the Hillsboro Recorder in March, 1821,
an " account * of the first Revolutionary move-
ments,' " and that the printer " made a mistake
and said, 'in the United States,' instead of 'in
this State.'" 2 As the opening words of Colonel
Folk's narrative are, " The first revolutionary move-
ments in this State as far as recollection serves,"
and as the original manuscript is indorsed by
Colonel Polk, " First revolutionary movements,
&c.", this was undoubtedly the narrative to which
Judge Murphey referred. Additional evidence is
afforded by the fact that he wrote Colonel Polk
on July 24, 1821 : "I have requested Mr. Heart,
the Editor of the Hillsboro Recorder, to send
you his paper, commencing with the latter part
of January." 3
The account of the Mecklenburg Declaration in
Colonel Polk's manuscript sketch of the first revolu-
1 Raleigh Register ', February 18, 1820.
* Col. Ree. of N. C., xix., 975-978. Cf. N. C. Univ. Mag., December,
1854, 447-448.
* From the original letter in the writer's possession. A very incomplete
file of the Hillsboro Recorder, and the only one known to be extant,
is in the possession of Miss Alice C. Heartt, of Hillsboro, N. C., the
granddaughter of the editor. Following an issue of January, 1821, which
announces that Judge Murphey would contribute a series of letters, there
The Martin and Garden Copies 183
tionary movements in North Carolina is in substance
and largely in form the same as that which appears
in Martin's History of North Carolina. From a
comparison of the two, which are printed below in
parallel columns, it is manifest that Martin copied
into his work the paper which Judge Murphey pre-
pared from the Polk manuscript and published in
the lost Hillsboro Recorder in March, 1821. There
is, of course, a diversity between the Polk and
Martin accounts of the Mecklenburg Declaration,
because the former was intended only as a basis for
Judge Murphey's publication ; and he no doubt
added facts bearing upon the matter which had
come to light up to the time of his writing. The
new data were contained in the joint certificate of
George Graham, William Hutchison, Jonas Clark,
and Robert Robison, given by these men at the
request of Colonel Polk, and published in the
Raleigh Register of February 18, 1820, and in the
testimony of James Jack and Francis Cummins,
published in the same paper on May 26, 1820.
The few facts recorded in the Martin account
which are not in Colonel Polk's are all stated in
this published testimony. The Polk recension
of the Mecklenburg resolutions does not agree
verbatim with Martin's nor with that published in
the Raleigh Register a few months before it was
is a gap in the file extending to late in that year. It would seem from
Judge Murphey's letter to General Graham, in which he refers to his
articles in the Hillsboro Recorder, that they were copied by a Fayetteville,
N. C., newspaper. The first of these articles was copied into the New-
bern Centinel, of September 8, 1821. It was written over the name of
" Florian."
1 84 The Mecklenburg Declaration
written ; but it contains several words and phrases
of the Martin copy which do not appear in the
Raleigh Register version. " The resolutions of the
Mecklenburg delegates," wrote Colonel Polk, " is
taken from a manuscript copy given by Dr. Jos.
McKnitt Alexander of Mecklenburg. / cannot
vouch for their being in the words of the Committee
who framed them, but they are essentially so." It
will appear below that Judge Murphey, being thus
informed that the resolutions were not an extract
from an original record and virtually told that he
might take liberties with them, made emendations
in several places where he thought that the original
text had not been preserved, and constructed a
sixth resolution of which Colonel Polk gave the
substance.
Polk. 1 Martin.
. . . But in no part of the In the western part of the
Province was there such oppo- province, the people were still
sition to the usurped acts of eager in their resistance. In
the British Gov*, nor so great the months of March and
a love of liberty and country April, 1775, the leading men
manifested as in the Coun- in the county of Mecklenburg
ty of Mecklenburg : In the held meetings to ascertain the
months of March & April sense of the people, and to
1775 the influential characters confirm them in their oppo-
in the County held meetings sition to the claim of the
to ascertain the sense of the parliament to impose taxes
people & to reason with them and regulate the internal
on the propriety of opposition policy of the colonies. At
to the right claimed by the one of those meetings, when
British Parliment to impose it was ascertained, that the
1 The parts of Folk's manuscript preceding and following the extract
printed here will be found in the Appendix.
The Martin and Garden Copies 185
taxes and regulate the internal
policy of the Colonies at one
of these meetings when it was
ascertained the People were
prepared to meet their wishes
if was agreed that Thomas
Polk then Col. comd* of the
County; should issue an order
directed to each Captain of
the Regiment, requiring them
to call a company meeting &
to elect two delegates from
each company to represent
them in Committee at Char-
lotte on the 19* of May 1775
giving to the Delegates full &
ample power to adopt such
measures as to them should
seem best calculated to pro-
mote the common cause ; to
defend the country against
British usurpation & slavery,
and aid our Brethren in Massa-
chusetts Agreeably to the
order aforesaid ; Delegates
from every Captains comp?
in the County (& which at
that time comprehended the
County of Cabarrus) met in
Charlotte with powers as am-
ple as had been required.
When the Delegates had taken
their seats in the C House
was nominated & ap-
pointed Chairman, & Doctor
Ephraim Brevard Secretary.
It had been agreed by those
at whose instance the con-
people were prepared to meet
their wishes, it was agreed,
that Thomas Polk, then colonel
commandant of the county,
should issue an order directed
to each captain of militia, re-
questing him to call a com-
pany meeting to elect two
delegates from his company,
to meet in general committee,
at Charlotte, on the igth of
May; giving to the delegates
ample power to adopt such
measures, as to them, should
seem best calculated to pro-
mote the common cause of
defending the rights of the
colony, and aiding their
brethren in Massachusetts.
Colonel Polk issued the order,
and delegates were elected.
They met in Charlotte, on the
day appointed. The forms
of their proceedings and the
measures to be proposed had
been previously agreed upon,
by the men at whose instance
the committee were assem-
bled. The Reverend Heze-
kiah Jones Balch, Dr. Ephraim
Brevard, and William Kennon,
esq. an attorney at law, ad-
dressed the committee, and
descanted on the causes which
had led to the existing contest
with the mother country, and
the consequences which were
to be apprehended, unless the
1 86 The Mecklenburg Declaration
vention met that the Revl
Hezekiah James Balch, Doct?
Eph. Brevard & W? Ken-
non Esq an Att? and man of
considerable oratorial powers,
should open the bussiness
by discanting on the causes
which had led to the existing
contest & the result, which
would inevitably follow, unless
met by a firm manly & ener-
getic resistance. to aid the
end which the leaders had in
view, it fortunately happened
that on the day of the meet-
ing the news of the action
at Lexington reached them;
fought on the 19* of April ;
which gave a fair & fortunate
opportunity for those who
were inclined to urge the pro-
priety of disolving the union
between the mother country
& the Colonies & to assume
a Republican form of Gov?
which was the great object of
the Leaders. The speakers
acquitted themselves on the
several subjects on which
they spoke remarkably well &
with great effect not only on
the Delegates, but a numerous
assemblage of the People of
the County led together from
the novelty of the meeting
when after a few observations
by several of the popular Dele-
gates ; it was echoed from
people should make a firm
and energetic resistance to
the right which parliament
asserted, of taxing the colo-
nies and regulating their in-
ternal policy.
On the day on which the
committee met, the first in-
telligence of the action at
Lexington, in Massachusetts,
on the i Qth of April, was
received in Charlotte. This
intelligence produced the
most decisive effect. A large
concourse of people had as-
sembled to witness the pro-
ceedings of the committee.
The speakers addressed their
discourses, as well to them, as
to the committee, and those
who were not convinced by
their reasoning, were influ-
enced by their feelings, and
all cried out, " let us be inde-
pendent ! let us declare our
independence and defend it
with our lives and fortunes ! "
A committee was appointed
to draw up resolutions. This
committee was composed of
the men who planned the
whole proceedings, and who
The Martin and Garden Copies 187
every quarter let us be Inde-
pendent ; let us declare our-
selves free and Independent
and we will defend it with
our lives & fortunes A
Committee was immediately
raised for the purpose of
drafting Resolutions in obedi-
ence to the wish of the Dele-
gates & the People present
who soon returned with the
following which had been
prepared some days before
from the pen of Doctor
Brevard :
Resolved That, whosoever
directly or indirectly abets 1
or in any way form or man-
ner, countenances 2 the unchar-
tered and dangerous invasion
of our rights as claimed by
G* Britain; is an enemy to this
country, to America & to the
inherent rights 8 of Man.
Resolved, That We the Citi-
zens of Mecklenburg County
do hereby dissolve the political
bonds which have connected
us with* the mother country;
and do hereby absolve our-
selves from all allegiance to
the British Crown, and ab-
jure all political connection
contract or association with
had, already, prepared the
resolutions which it was in-
tended should be submitted
to the general committee.
Doctor Ephraim Brevard had
drawn up the resolutions
sometime before, and now
reported them, with amend-
ments, as follows :
"Resolved, That whosoever
directly or indirectly abets, or
in any way, form or manner,
countenances the invasion of
our rights as attempted by the
parliament of Great Britain,
is an enemy to his country, to
America and the rights of
man.
" Resolved, That we, the citi-
zens of Mecklenburg county,
do hereby dissolve the po-
litical bonds which have con-
nected us with the mother
country; and absolve our-
selves from all allegiance to
the British crown, abjuring
all political connexion with
a nation, that has wantonly
1 The Raleigh Register copy has " abetted."
'The Raleigh Register copy has " countenanced."
8 The Raleigh Register copy has " inherent and inalienable rights.'*
4 The Raleigh Register copy has " to " instead of "with."
1 88 The Mecklenburg Declaration
that Nation who have wan-
tonly trampled on our rights
and liberties and inhumanly
shed the innocent blood of
our American J Patriots at Lex-
ington.
Resolved, That we do here-
by declare ourselves a free
and independent People are
& of right ought to be a sov-
ereign & self governing asso-
ciation under the power of
God & the general Congress 9 ;
to the maintainance of which
Independence we solemnly
pledge to each other, our mu-
tual cooperation, our lives our
fortunes & our most sacred
honor.
Resolved, That as we now
acknowledge the existence and
controul of no law or legal
officer civil or military, within
this county; we do hereby
ordain and adopt as a rule of
life, all and each of our for-
mer laws, wherin neverthe-
less the Crown of G. B. never
can be considered as holding
rights priviledges immunities
or authority therein.
Resolved, That and it' is
further decreed that all, each
and every Military Officer in
trampled on our rights and
liberties, and inhumanly shed
the innocent blood of Ameri-
cans at Lexington.
" Resolved, That we do here-
by declare ourselves a free and
independent people, that we
are and of right ought to be a
sovereign and self-governing
people, under the power of
God and the general congress;
to the maintenance of which
independence we solemnly
pledge to each other, our
mutual co-operation, our lives,
our fortunes and our most
sacred honor.
" Resolved, That we do here-
by ordain and adopt as rules
of conduct, all and each of our
former laws, and the crown of
Great Britain cannot be con-
sidered hereafter as holding
any rights, privileges or im-
munities amongst us.
" Resolved, That all officers
both civil and military, in this
county, be entitled to exer-
1 The Raleigh Register copy has "of American."
9 The Raleigh Register copy has ' ' under the control of no power other
than that of our God and the General Government of the Congress."
8 The Raleigh Register copy has " That it."
The Martin and Garden Copies 189
this County is hereby rein-
stated to his former command
and authority, he acting con-
formably to these regulations;
and that every member pres-
ent of this delegation shall
henceforth be a civil officer
viz a Justice of the Peace in
the Character of a Committee
man, to issue process, hear
and determine all matters of
controversy according to said
adopted Laws, to preserve
Peace, union 1 & harmony in
s? County; and to use every
exertion to spread the love of
liberty & of country 8 throuoght
America untill a more general
& organised goverment be
established in this Province.
Resolved, That the forego ing
resolutions, be adopted which
was accordingly done unani-
mously, & that the Delegates
sign their names to the same.
It was also resolved, that a
copy of the resolutions should
be transmitted by express to
the Gen? Congress to be
laid before that body by the
representatives from the Pro-
vince Viz Caswell Hooper &
Hughes a committee was
appointed to select a proper
person to be the bearer of the
cise the same powers and
authorities as heretofore; that
every member of this delega-
tion shall henceforth be a
civil officer, and exercise the
powers of a justice of the
peace, issue process, hear and
determine controversies ac-
cording to law, preserve peace,
union and harmony in the
county, and use every exer-
tion to spread the love of lib-
erty and of country, until a
more general and better organ-
ized system of government be
established.
"Resolved, That a copy of
these resolutions be trans-
mitted, by express, to the
president of the continental
congress, assembled in Phil-
adelphia, to be laid before
that body."
These resolutions were
unanimously adopted and sub-
scribed by the delegates.
1 The Raleigh Register copy has " peace and union."
8 The Raleigh Register copy has "the love of country and fire of
freedom."
1 90 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Resolutions who engaged the
services of Cap* James Jack a
Citizen of Charlotte; who ac-
cordingly set off and delivered
the same The President of
Congress returned by Cap!
Jack a polite answer to the
address accompanying the res-
olutions, in which he highly
approved of the measures en-
tered into by the Delegates
of Mecklenburg; but deemed
it premature to submit the
resolutions to Congress The
Representatives from the Pro-
vince also sent a joint letter
complimentary to the people
of Mecklenburg & applauding
their zeal in the common cause
& recommending the same
good order & perseverance
which had marked their for-
mer conduct should be kept up
& persevered in. [They stated
also, " that the time would
soon be, when the whole Con-
tinent would follow our exam-
ple." (Joint certificate of
Geo. Graham and others,
Raleigh Register, Feb. 18,
7<&?o.)' " When the resolu-
tions were finally agreed on
they were publicly proclaimed
from the court-house door"
James Jack, then of Charlotte,
but now residing in the state
of Georgia, was engaged to
be the bearer of the resolu-
tions to the president of con-
gress, and directed to deliver
copies of them to the dele-
gates in congress from North
Carolina. The president re-
turned a polite answer to the
address which accompanied
the resolutions, in which he
highly approved of the meas-
ures adopted by the delegates
of Mecklenburg; but deemed
the subject of the resolutions
premature to be laid before
congress. Messrs. Caswell,
Hooper and Hewes, forward-
ed a joint letter, in which they
complimented the people of
Mecklenburg for their zeal in
the common cause, and rec-
ommended to them, the strict
observance of good order;
that the time would soon
come, when the whole conti-
nent would follow their exam-
pie.
On the day that the resolu-
tions were adopted by the del-
egates in Charlotte, they were
read aloud to the people, who
had assembled in the town,
1 The joint certificate of George Graham, Wm. Hutchison, Jonas
Clark, and Robert Robison (State Pamphlet) was given at the request of
Colonel Wm. Polk and substantiates his statements regarding the actors in
the transaction.
The Martin and Garden Copies 191
(Captain Jack's certificate,
Raleigh Register, May 26,
1826), " under the shouts and
huzzas of a very large assem-
bly of the people." (Graham
and others?) " I was then solic-
ited to be the bearer of the
proceedings and in
passing through Salisbury, the
General Court was sitting
at the request of the court I
handed a copy of the resolu-
tions to Col. Kennon, an attor-
ney, and they were read aloud
in open court. Major Wil-
liam Davidson, and Mr.
Avery, an attorney, called on
me at my lodgings the even-
ing after, and observed they
had heard of but one person,
(a Mr. Beard) but approved
of them . ' ' ( Captain Jack's
certificate.)]
In addition to the foregoing
resolutions, a number of other
resolutions & bye laws were
adopted Courts of Justice
were held by & under the
direction of the Delegates
for some months these Courts
held their sittings at Char-
lotte, but for the better con-
venience of the people two
other places were selected at
which & at Charlotte the court
met alternately.
A Committee of safety was
selected from the whole Dele-
and proclaimed amidst the
shouts and huzzas, as express-
ing the feelings and de-
termination of all present.
When captain Jack reached
Salisbury, on his way to Phil-
adelphia, the general court
was sitting, and Mr. Kennon,
an attorney at law, who had
assisted in the proceedings of
the delegates at Charlotte,
was then in Salisbury. At
the request of the judges, Mr.
Kennon read the resolutions
aloud in open court, to a large
concourse of people; they
were listened to with attention
and approved by all present.
The delegates at Charlotte
being empowered to adopt
such measures, as in their
opinion would best promote
the common cause, established
a variety of regulations for
managing the concerns of the
country. Courts of justice
were held under the direction
of the delegates. For some
months these courts were held
at Charlotte ; but for the con-
venience of the people, (for
at that time Cabarrus formed
part of Mecklenburg,) two
192 The Mecklenburg Declaration
gation, to whom was given
power to examine all persons
brought before them who were
charged or suspected of being
inimical to the cause of free-
dom & the safety of the
Country This Committee
was delegated with authority
from the Gen! Delagation
to send the Military of
the County to bring before
them persons living in adja-
cent Counties charged with
toryism or inimical to the
cause of Liberty, & they in
the plentitude of this power
sent into Lincoln & Rowan
Counties & and brought from
them divers persons charged
as afores d to such as shewed
penitence & took an oath to
support the cause of Liberty
& the Country were set at
Liberty others were sent
under guard into S? Carolina
for safe keeping among the
latter were John Dunn &
BenjP Boothe Boote two Law-
yers of Salisbury. It was
unquestionably owing to the
early exertions of this band of
Patriots & to the measures
entered into at the meeting of
the Delegates on the 19^ of
May ; that the future unanim-
ity & exertions of the Peo-
ple of Mecklenburg in the
cause of liberty & indepen-
other places were selected^
and the courts were held at
each in rotation. The dele-
gates appointed a committee
of their body, who were called
" a committee of safety," and
they were empowered to ex-
amine all persons brought be-
fore them charged with being
inimical to the common cause,
and to send the military into
neighboring counties to arrest
suspected persons. In the
exercise of this power, the
committee sent into Lincoln
and Rowan counties, and had
a number of persons arrested
and brought before them.
Those who manifested peni-
tence for their toryism, and
took an oath to support the
cause of liberty and of the
country, were discharged. Oth-
ers were sent under guard
into South Carolina for safe
keeping. The meeting of the
delegates at Charlotte and the
proceedings which grew out
of that meeting, produced the
zeal and unanimity for which
the people of Mecklenburg
were distinguished during the
whole of the revolutionary
war. They became united as
a band of brothers, whose
confidence in each other, and
the cause which they had
sworn to support, was never
The Martin and Garden Copies 193
dence, was so remarkable shaken in the worst of times.
it united them into a band of
Brothers, whose confidence in
each other & the cause they
had sworn to support ; was
never shaken ; even in the
worst of times
The truth is apparent on the face of these papers.
It is confirmed by another account of the Mecklen-
burg Declaration, written by Judge Murphey, which
contains passages substantially the same as some of
these found in the Polk manuscript and literally the
same as passages in the Martin account. This is the
revised Polk narrative in condensed form, and prob-
ably the account of the Mecklenburg Declaration
which Judge Murphey intended to use in his history
of North Carolina. It was undoubtedly written be-
fore Martin's book was published, in the autumn of
1829, for Murphey had by that time virtually aban-
doned his historical work. An extract from the
original manuscript, which cannot now be found, was
published by John H. Wheeler, the North Carolina
historian, in Our Living and Our Dead, for January,
1875. Wheeler prefaced it as follows: "In our
explorations of the field of history we have met the
unpublished manuscript of an able, learned and dis-
tinguished son of North Carolina, now dead, late
Archibald D. Murphey. He was in the councils of
the State from 1812-18, and for some years a judge.
He was a devotee to history and collected a large
mass of information which he did not live to publish.
We extract the following." Wheeler does not re-
produce the resolutions in the Murphey manuscript,
13
194 The Mecklenburg Declaration
but says at the place where they should appear,
" Here are quoted the identical resolutions of May
20, already given." The resolutions referred to are
those printed in the State Pamphlet ; but Wheeler
is perhaps as inaccurate a historian as ever wrote
when the facts were actually before him. It is not
unlikely, however, that Judge Murphey decided to
use the Davie (Raleigh Register) copy of the reso-
lutions in his history of North Carolina instead of
the polished edition which he published in 1821.
Dr. George W. Graham and other recent pro-decla-
ration writers tell us there was still another historian
who copied the document from the much discussed
Cape-Fear Mercury, or, at least, from a paper of
earlier date than the Davie copy. Major Alexander
Garden, who served under "Light Horse Harry"
Lee, published nearly a year before Martin's history
appeared, in his Anecdotes of the American Revolu-
tion, a copy of the Mecklenburg Declaration which
agrees verbatim et literatim with Martin's but for
six minor discrepancies. The discrepancies are to
be attributed to mistakes in printing or transcribing.
Garden's copy has two words less than Martin's, two
words different from the corresponding ones in
Martin's, a word misplaced, and a word written in
the plural which is in the singular in Martin's. Gar-
den's story of the declaration is little more than an
abridgment of Martin's, whole sentences in the two
narratives being literally the same. Both were
derived therefore from a common source. We con-
clude with Dr. Graham that this applies likewise
to the resolutions. Garden also drew upon an article
The Martin and Garden Copies 195
on the Mecklenburg Declaration which appeared in
the Charleston Mercury of July 4, 1828, over the
name of " Guilford." His book was published in
Charleston, where he resided, in November follow-
ing. The Garden "anecdote," a part of the ab-
breviated Murphey narrative printed by John H.
Wheeler, and extracts from the opening and closing
paragraphs of " Guilford's " article are placed below
in parallel columns. A glance will show that the
former are both condensed forms of the revised
Polk narrative which Martin reproduced, and that
" Guilford's " article furnished Garden with addi-
tional matter. 1 Passages in the Murphey and
Garden narratives which are to be found verbatim ef
literatim, or nearly so, in Martin's, are italicized.
Murphey and Guilford. Garden.
Boston has been emphatically It is a compliment richly due
styled the cradle of American to our sister State of North-
Liberty; and to Massachusetts Carolina, to mention an im-
doubtless belongs the merit of portant fact, which, however
having given the first im- redounding to her credit, is
pulse to that spirit of resistance even at this period but little
1 "Guilford" prepared his story of the Mecklenburg Declaration from
4 ' J. McKnitt's " publication. His resolutions are slightly different from
44 J. McKnitt's," but they were undoubtedly intended to be a true copy.
For 4l Guilford's " article the writer is indebted to Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr.,
who also pointed out its resemblance to the Garden narrative and ascer-
tained the month of the publication of Garden's book by these facts : "In
the first part of the book there is a letter from Major Garden to Gen.
Thomas Pinckney, dated October 12, 1828, and to this Major Garden adds
a note referring to the death of Gen Pinckney. Gen, Pinckney died on the
2d of November. The copyright to the book, printed on the reverse of
the title-page, was issued by the clerk of the United States District Court
at Charleston on the I7th of November. The Library of the University
of South Carolina has a copy dated 4 November 27, 1828 ' on the cover."
196 The Mecklenburg Declaration
which led to the emancipation
of the American Colonies. . . .
Yet, while Massachusetts and
Virginia equally contend for
the credit of having first given
birth to the spirit of the Revo-
lution, and while we accord to
each the merit which is espe-
cially due to them ; to the State
of North Carolina must be
conceded the honour of hav-
ing first adopted a formal and
decisive declaration of Inde-
pendence. The History of this
important event never having
been given to the world ex-
cept in a cursory manner by
the learned Doctor Caldwell
in his life of Greene, the fact
itself is little known and but
imperfectly understood, tho'
its authority is established both
by the existence of the min-
utes of the meeting which are
still extant in the handwriting
of the Author and mover of
these resolutions, which have
been happily observed by a
near relative of his, as well as
by the testimony of a few of
the survivors of the revolution,
who still reside in that part of
the country. [" Guilford"]
In no part of the province
of North Carolina was there
such zealous opposition to the
pretensions of the mother
country as was in the county
known to the citizens generally
of the United States.
The townof Boston has been,
with great propriety, styled
"the Cradle of the Revolu-
tion." The opposition of its
inhabitants to the encroach-
ments of Great Britain first
roused the Colonists to a just
sense of the injuries medita-
ted against their liberties, and
fixed their resolution to repel
force by force. Yet it will
forever redound to the honour
of North-Carolina, that it was
among her people that the
bold idea of Independence
was first conceived and pro-
claimed to the world. The
tyrannical measures pursued
by the officers of the Crown :
the iniquities practised by
those of the courts of justice,
produced a general spirit of
discontent as early as the year
1768.
But it was in Mecklenburg
County that a zealous opposi-
tion to the pretensions of the
mother country, and a deter-
mination to resist the agres-
The Martin and Garden Copies 197
of Mecklenburg in the months
of March and April, 1775.
The leading men in the county
held meetings to ascertain the
sense of the people and to con-
firm them in their opposition to
the claims of Parliament to im-
pose taxes and regulate the in-
ternal policy of the colony. At
one of these meetings it was
agreed that Thomas Polk, the
Colonel Commandant of the
county, should issue an order
directed to each captain of mili-
tia to call a company meeting and
elect two delegates from each
company to meet in general com-
mittee at Charlotte, on May
2 9* *775i giving these delegates
ample power to adopt such meas-
ures as to them should seem best.
The committee met. Dr.
Brevard and William Kennon
addressed the meeting. The
question was formally put
whether it was then expedient
for the people of Mecklenberg
county to declare themselves
independent. It was decided
unanimously in the affirmative.
A committee was appointed to
present resolutions, which were
as follows: ^ Here" says
John H. Wheeler, " are quoted
the identical resolutions of
May 2Oth, already given.
Judge Murphey continues : " ]
\Murphey. J
sions of power were first
decidedly manifested. The
leading men held meetings to
ascertain the sense of the people,
and to confirm them in their
opposition to the claim of Par-
liament to impose taxes, and
regulate the internal policy of
the Colony. The Post Com-
mandant of the county was,
on one occasion, directed to
issue orders to each captain
of the militia, to elect two dele-
gates from his company, to
meet in general committee at
Charlotte, the better to adopt
such measures as should seem
best calculated to promote the
common cause, of defending the
right of the Colony, and of aiding
their brethren in Massachusetts.
The order was issued, and dele-
gates elected, who met at Char-
lotte on the 1 9th of May, 1775.
On that day, the first intelli-
gence of the commencement
of hostilities at Lexington, was
received by the committee.
Its effect was decisive. The uni-
versal cry was, " Let us be in-
dependent let us declare our
independence and defend it
with our lives and fortunes."
Resolutions were immediately
drawn up and adopted. Dr.
Brevard, who framed them,
had the honour to report them,
also they were to this effect :
198 The Mecklenburg Declaration
The singular identity of lan-
guage and sentiment of these
Resolutions, with those of the
Declaration of Independence
drawn up by Mr. Jefferson,
more than a year afterwards,
afford a subject of envious re-
mark. In force and elegance
of expression, and in purity of
principle, they are alike hon-
ourable to the distinguished
gentleman who framed them,
as they are to the conven-
tion, which in the language of
the Resolutions " pledging to
each other their mutual Coop-
eration, their lives, and their
fortunes, and most sacred hon-
our," in their wisdom adop-
ted and under favor of God
and their consciences, at the
hazard of their lives, their
liberties, and all that was dear,
supported. The events which
followed this memorable dec-
laration in that section of the
country, which was alike the
subject of foreign invasion and
civil war, would afford abun-
dant interesting material for
the historian and we are much
gratified to perceive that a
history of the State is now in a
state of forwardness, under the
[Here is inserted an almost
perfect reproduction of the
Martin copy of the declara-
tion^
I think it scarcely possible
to read these Resolutions,
without perceiving how strong
the similarity of sentiment ex-
pressed in the Declaration of
Independence, introduced by
Mr. Jefferson, at an after pe-
riod into Congress. Even the
expressions are, in many in-
stances, literally the same, in
so much as to give conviction,
that the Mecklenburg Resolu-
tions were constantly in view,
when the Committee of Con-
gress drew that momentous
document, which we consider
as the palladium of our lives
and liberties.
This early manifestation
of patriotic enthusiasm, never
knew diminution ; a steadiness
of principle characterized the
inhabitants of Mecklenburg
county throughout the whole
war. It was there that sup-
plies were, with the greatest
liberality, bestowed on the
soldiers fighting the battles of
their country that the hos-
pitals were best protected, and
comforts afforded the sick. It
was there that the enemy met
with constant and decided op-
position, and that they were
The Martin and Garden Copies 199
direction of a gentleman whose so incessantly harassed at ev-
talents and industry amply ery turn, and in every situa-
qualify him to do justice to the tion which they occupied, that
subject. "Gwlford" Charlotte was emphatically
styled by them "the Hor-
nets' Nest:'
It will be seen that Garden's last paragraph is a
brief summary of facts stated in the concluding por-
tion of the Polk manuscript and mostly omitted by
Martin when he copied Murphey's published ac-
count. Murphey's second revision of the Polk
narrative, which he seems to have written for his
proposed history of North Carolina, contained a
fuller statement than Garden gave. Wheeler's
extracts from his manuscript, continued from where
they were left off, are as follows 1 :
The resolutions were unanimously adopted and subscribed to by
all the delegates. Captain James Jack, then of Charlotte^ but
since of Georgia, was engaged as the bearer to the President of
the Continental Congress, and directed to deliver copies to Caswell,
Hooper, and Hewes, the delegates to Congress from North
Carolina. . . . These delegates prudently advised that no
open opposition should be made by the inhabitants of de-
tached portions of the country before the proper season, when
the whole would rise together. This advice, dictated by wis-
dom, was observed by the people of Mecklenburg, and it was
no doubt owing to this fact that so little of this curious his-
tory is known to the world. . . . The Declaration of Meck-
lenburg derives its importance from its consequences, for this
event not only influenced but determined the fate of the Revo-
lution in the Southern States. It produced that zeal and
unanimity for which the people of Mecklenburg and Rowan were
distinguished during the whole contest. They became united as
one band of brother S) had confidence in the cause they vowed to sup-
1 The italicized portions are in the words of the so-called Martin copy.
200 The Mecklenburg Declaration
port, which faith was never shaken in the darkest hour of the
long and dubious contest. They opposed the first barrier to the
British forces flushed with the conquest of Georgia and South
Carolina. Gates being defeated, there was not a Continental
soldier between Camden, South Carolina, and Hillsboro'. A
mere handful of the brave men of Mecklenburg disputed the
possession of Charlotte, and while there the pickets and forag-
ing parties of the invaders were constantly fired upon. After
Cornwallis* retreat from Charlotte, which his legionary Colonel,
Tarleton, with as much truth as wit, pronounced to be an
agreeable village, but a decidedly rebellious place, these men,
unawed by force and undismayed by reverses, rapidly re-
cruited the shattered corps of Sumpter, Davie, and Washing-
ton ; rallied to the standard of Greene and fought gallantly at
Cowpens, Eutaw and elsewhere. ... It thus is clear that
the declaration at Charlotte becomes one of the most import-
ant events of the American Revolution. The spirit it excited
sustained the cause in the Southern States. It formed a nu-
cleus around which valor might rally.
If further evidence were wanting in order to
prove that Martin and Garden copied the revised
Polk narrative and resolutions, it might be pointed
out that both of these men were friends of Colo-
nel William Polk, 1 that Martin was in communica-
tion with Murphey shortly before his work was
published, and that he read the North Carolina
newspapers. Martin says in his preface that he
thought of abandoning his work on account of
the following circumstance :
" The public prints stated, that a gentleman of
known industry and great talents, who has filled a
very high office in North Carolina, was engaged in
a similar work ; but several years have elapsed
1 Geo. W. Graham : The Mecklenburg Declaration.
The Martin and Garden Copies 201
since, and nothing favors the belief that the hopes
which he excited will soon be realized.
" This gentleman had made application for the
materials now published, and they would have been
forwarded to him, if they had been in a condition
of being useful to any but him who had collected
them."
No one but Judge Murphey was spoken of at this
time as the author of a forthcoming history of
North Carolina. The editor of the Raleigh Register
said in his issue of November 1 1, 1825 : " If Judge
Martin does not intend to finish his work, it is
much to be wished that his materials could be pro-
cured and placed in the hands of Mr. Murphey."
On seeing the announcement of the publication of
Martin's work, he said (September 10, 1829) that
he " supposed he had relinquished his intentions on
this subject, or postponed them, in view of the
contemplated work by Judge Murphey." In an
unpublished review of Martin's history, Joseph
Seawell Jones, the historian, stated that the remarks
in Martin's preface referred to Judge Murphey,
with whom Jones was well acquainted. He signifi-
cantly said : " There is not in his whole book a
single original view of any point or period in the
history of the State." *
1 Jones's manuscript, bearing his signature, is in the Bancroft Collection
(" Am. Colonies," vol. i.), in the N. Y. Pub. Lib. It was written shortly
after the publication of Martin's work.
CHAPTER XI
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES
WE have traced the origin of the myth of the
Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence and of
the several forms of the declaration which is al-
leged to have been adopted May 20, 1775, and we
have treated all the evidence of earlier date than
1819, t ^ ie Y ear m which that document was first
given to the world in the columns of the Raleigh
Register, which is cited in support of its authen-
ticity. It remains to make a critical analysis of a
neglected part of the testimony of the aged men
who stated between 1819 and 1830 that they had
been present in Charlotte when a declaration of
independence was agreed upon. Our study of con-
temporaneous records has shown that the most
significant facts which were associated in the recol-
lection of these men with the passage of the reso-
lutions which they understood to be a declaration
of independence are peculiar to the resolutions of
May 31, 1775. Their statements concerning the
declaration itself, its date, and the disputed secre-
taryship of the meeting that is alleged to have
passed it, must now be considered.
In virtue of the proof afforded by the original
202
Testimony of the Witnesses 203
Davie paper that the resolutions published in 1819
proceeded from John McKnitt Alexander, and in
virtue of the testimony which he published in
the State Pamphlet, Governor Montfort Stokes, of
North Carolina, under the authority and direction
of the General Assembly, affirmed these resolutions
to be genuine and authentic. It is difficult to
understand how John McKnitt Alexander's cer-
tificate to the Davie paper could have been thus
overlooked, or misconstrued and suppressed. The
certificate could not have been missing when the
Davie paper was submitted to the legislative com-
mittee of 1830-31, for Professor Charles Phillips,
after inspecting it in 1853, said that the certificate
formed the " conclusion to the manuscript " not a
separate sheet. 1 We venture to suppose that Dr.
Joseph McKnitt Alexander, Governor Stokes, and
the legislative committee, wishing to view the mat-
ter in the most favorable light, judged that when
John McKnitt Alexander said that the " foregoing
statement, though fundamentally correct, may not
literally correspond with the original record," he
referred to the historical statement which accom-
panied the resolutions in the Davie paper, 2 and
that if he referred also to the resolutions, he meant
that they were taken from a transcript of the orig-
inal record, carelessly made, perhaps, and that he
would not vouch for their literal correctness, be-
cause he could not compare them with the records.
1 N. C. Univ. Mag., May, 1853.
8 John H. Wheeler construes the certificate thus in his Reminiscences of
N. C. 266.
204 The Mecklenburg Declaration
The manuscript " in an unknown handwriting,"
from which Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander pre-
pared the resolutions published in 1819, an d which
he certified in 1830 to be "most probably a copy
taken long since from the original for some per-
son corrected by Jno. McKnitt Alexander," was
" so perfectly the same " as the Davie paper, as far
as the latter was preserved, that the genuineness
and authenticity of the published resolutions was
held to be unquestionable.
Not one of the thirteen survivors of May, 1775,
whose testimony appears in the State Pamphlet,
manifests the slightest knowledge of John McKnitt
Alexander's certificate to the Davie paper. During
the period in which this testimony was given, the
only recorded evidence that any one in North Caro-
lina doubted whether the published resolutions were
verbally correct is contained in some lost newspaper
articles by an unknown writer, published about
1830^ and in the manuscript narrative of the four-
teenth witness, Colonel William Polk, written in
August, 1819, more than a year before the Davie
paper was found. 3 Those among the aged de-
1 W. H. Foote, Sketches of N. C., 207. Foote's statements seem to
imply North Carolina newspapers of 1830.
8 Evidences of prevailing ideas are abundant. In an address delivered
in Mecklenburg, July 5, 1824, Dr. M. W. Alexander said that the Alex-
ander document contained " the proceedings of the meeting as drawn and
certified by their clerk." A writer in the Charleston Mercury of July 4,
1828, said that " the fact itself is little known and but imperfectly under-
stood, tho' its authority is established both by the existence of the minutes
of the meeting which are still extant in the handwriting of the Author and
mover of these resolutions, which have been happily observed [preserved]
by a near relative of his," etc.
Testimony of the Witnesses 205
ponents who saw the resolutions published in 1819
before they gave their testimony were betrayed
into the error of believing that they had been
copied from the records which were destroyed in
Alexander's house in 1 800 ; and it was inevitable
that some should have been forced to believe that
the historical statement which accompanied the re-
solutions was prepared by Alexander with the aid
of the records, and that others should have ac-
cepted and accredited as true anything which they
did not distinctly perceive to be false. Indeed, the
careless reader who does not observe that the his-
torical statement relates events which occurred long
after May 20, 1775, might suppose that the entire
paper, being dated, in the usual way, " North-
Carolina, Mecklenburg County, May 20, 1775," is
an official report made on that day. Here, then,
were fourteen men, laboring under the weight of
years, who were called upon to testify on the
strength of mere memory, after a lapse of nearly
a half century or more, concerning the peculiar
phraseology, or exact import, or both, of a series
of resolutions which most of them had heard read
but once, from the steps of the courthouse in
Charlotte. All were very young men or boys in
May, 1775, and likely to have been among the
first who transfigured the Mecklenburg resolves
of May 31, 1775, into a declaration of independence.
Here were a series of resolutions, without a rival,
which purported to be the declaration made in
May, 1775, accompanied by a narrative of events
which these men had associated with the resolutions
2o6 The Mecklenburg Declaration
which they had in mind. The document was cer-
tified by the son of the last custodian of the records
of May, 1775, to be a true copy of papers left in
his hands by his father, and the greater number of
the aged witnesses were virtually told that these
were the resolutions which they had heard read,
and that May 20, 1775, was their date, or that
John McKnitt Alexander, their late honored com-
patriot, was a forger and a liar. All gave their
testimony in answer to leading questions. And
yet, notwithstanding the strong prepossessions
under which they labored, the paper of May 31,
1775, reasserted its hold upon their memories even
in their statements concerning the terms of the
resolutions which they called a declaration of in-
dependence.
General Joseph Graham, though but fifteen years
of age in May, 1775, described the great meeting
of that month with extraordinary particularity.
He wrote in 1830, fifty-five years later, at the re-
quest of Dr. Joseph McKnitt Alexander. The
facts to which he certified explode the very hypo-
thesis they were cited to confirm, and explain the
origin of the remarkable assumption expressed in
the preamble of the May 3ist resolves, under
which these resolves proceeded. General Graham
stated that one of the " reasons" for declaring in-
dependence was "that the King or Ministry had,
by proclamation or some edict, declared the Colo-
nies out of the protection of the British Crown."
He distinctly recollected, he said, that after a com-
mittee of three had retired from the courthouse to
Testimony of the Witnesses 207
draft the declaration, a member of the Committee of
Safety " addressed the Chairman as follows: * If you
resolve on independence, how shall we be absolved
from the obligations of the oath we took to be true to
King George the 3d about four years ago, after the
Regulation battle, when we were sworn whole
militia companies together ? " " This speech pro-
duced confusion," wrote General Graham. " Some
said it was nonsense ; others that allegiance and
protection were reciprocal," and that, as the King
had declared them out of his protection, the oath
was no longer binding. The " reason " for declar-
ing independence stated by General Graham is
substantially the professed " reason " for which the
Mecklenburg committee on May 31, 1775, refused
to support any government under the crown of
Great Britain. The preamble of the May 3ist
resolves reads: " Whereas by an Address presented
to his Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, in
February last, the American colonies are declared
to be in a state of actual rebellion, we conceive
that all laws and commissions confirmed by or de-
rived from the authority of the King or Parliament,
are annulled and vacated, and the former civil con-
stitution of these colonies, for the present, wholly
suspended." The address of Parliament referred
to was presented to the King February 7, 1775. It
did not, as General Graham recollected, declare the
Colonies out of the protection of the British crown,
but only that " a part of your Majesty's subjects in
the province of the Massachusetts Bay have pro-
ceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme
208 The Mecklenburg Declaration
legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually
exists within the said province ; and we see with
the utmost concern that they have been counte-
nanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations
and engagements entered into by your Majesty's
subjects in several of the other colonies, . . ." 1
It is evident that the Mecklenburg patriots had
some strong motive which is not apparent on the
face of their bold resolves for giving them a color
of legality by construing the sentence of rebellion
passed on Massachusetts to fall also on themselves.
No colony, not even Massachusetts, dared to ex-
press the conception of the civil status created for
the colonies by Parliament's address of February
7> X 775 which these men formulated. General
Graham's testimony shows very clearly that the
preamble of the May 3ist resolves, with its strained
construction of that address, was designed prima-
rily as a shield for the tender consciences of those
who took the oath 2 " to be true to King George the
3d," as he describes it, which was exacted by Gov-
ernor Tryon after the Regulator insurrection in
1771. With his recollections of the charge of re-
1 Hansard's Parliamentary History of England, xviii. , 297.
9 The precise terms of this oath are unknown. It is usually spoken of
as an oath of allegiance, but it must have been something more than that in
order to have answered its purpose. Prof. Charles Phillips, who had access
to Governor Swain's great collection of North Caroliniana, called it an oath
" not to disturb his Majesty's government again " (N. C. Univ. Mag., May,
1853). Prof. Wm. E. Dodd speaks of it in his Life of Nathaniel M aeon as
an " iron-clad oath of allegiance." Rev. Francis L. Hawks, who had
richer and more valuable materials than any other North Carolina historian,
says that it was an oath " ' never to bear arms against the King, but to take
up arms for him, if called upon.'" He seems to have quoted the words
of the oath itself." Dr. Hawks 's Lecture, Cookf, 63.
Testimony of the Witnesses 209
bellion and consequent suspension of royal author-
ity, which practically involved a suspension of
allegiance, General Graham identified the principle
of the reciprocity of protection and allegiance,
which was commonly urged as an argument for
declaring independence after the King's proclama-
tion of August 23, 1775, declaring many subjects in
divers parts of the Colonies to be in open and
avowed rebellion, and the King's assent to the Act
of Parliament declaring them out of his protection. 1
While General Graham stated that the meeting
which adopted the supposed declaration was held
May 20, 1775, and that the resolutions which he
heard were " as near as I can recollect, in the
very words we have since seen them several times
in print," his testimony concerning the resolutions
themselves, as well as concerning a variety of facts
and circumstances attending their adoption which
we have already considered, prove that he con-
founded his recollections by identifying them with
the simulated document.
The testimony of John Simeson is not less signifi-
cant than General Graham's. Simeson was twenty-
one years old when the event of which he wrote
occurred. After conversing, he said, "with many
old friends and others," and evidently after his
mind was preoccupied by the publications made on
the subject, he wrote from his home in Mecklen-
berg county, January 20, 1820 : " As to the names
of those who drew up the Declaration, I am inclined
1 Compare Graham's statement with the opening words of the constitution
of N. C.
210 The Mecklenburg Declaration
to think Doctor Brevard was the principal, from his
known talents in composition. It was, however, in
substance and form, like that great national act
agreed on thirteen months after. Ours was towards
the close of May, 1 775. In addition to what I have
said, the same committee appointed three men to
secure all the military stores for the county's use
Thomas Polk, John Phifer and Joseph Kennedy.
I was under arms near the head of the line, near
Col. Polk, and heard him distinctly read a long
string of Grievances, the Declaration and Military
Order above." John Simeson recollected nearly
the precise terms of the military order which forms
the last of the " long string " of resolutions which
he was struggling to recall. The true " Mecklen-
burg Declaration of Independence " concludes as
follows :
" XX. That the Committee appoint Colonel
Thomas Polk, and Doctor Joseph Kenedy, to pur-
chase 300 Ib. of powder, 600 Ib. of lead, 1000 flints,
for the use of the militia of this county, and deposit
the same in such place as the Committee may here-
after direct.
" Signed by order of the Committee,
" EPH. BREVARD,
" Clerk of the Committee."
Simeson erred only in adding the name of John
Phifer to the number of those mentioned in the
military order. But his error was a likely one, for
it appears that John Phifer actually received the
military stores purchased under the order. On
December 22, 1775, the Provincial Council of North
Testimony of the Witnesses 2 1 1
Carolina resolved that Jeremiah McCaffety be paid
for "two hundred and ninety-seven pounds and
three-quarters of a pound of Gun powder taken
and received by Colonel Thomas Polk and Major
John Phifer." '
The testimony of the Rev. Humphrey Hunter
is contained in an extract from his memoir, as it
is entitled in the State Pamphlet, which consists
of little more than an abridgment of the published
Alexander narrative, a transcript of the accompany-
ing resolutions, and a list of " delegates " prepared
from the address of Dr. Moses Winslow Alexander,
delivered in Hopewell church, Mecklenberg county,
July 5, I824. 1 "The memoir is dated 1827," said
Romulus M. Saunders in 1852, after examining the
original then in the possession of Governor Swain,
" and appears to be a response to a request made
by Dr. Alexander, . . ." 2 Hunter was barely
twenty years of age when the memorable event
occurred. Even he, blindly following the Alex-
ander narrative, showed that the paper of May 31,
1775, was in his thoughts. He wrote: "Those
resolves [the Alexander series] having been con-
curred in, bye-laws and regulations for the govern-
ment of a standing Committee of Public Safety
were enacted and acknowledged." This is an
accurate reminiscence of the substance of all the
resolves of the paper of May 31, 1775, which
1 Catawba Journal (Charlotte), Oct. 19, 1824. Republished in the South-
ern Home (Charlotte), May 10, 1875, and Charlotte Observer, May 20, 1906.
8 Address at Wake Forest College, N. C. Cf. Prof. Phillips in N. C.
Univ. Mag., May 1853.
212 The Mecklenburg Declaration
follow the resolves analogous to a declaration of
independence. Hunter took it for granted that it
was on May 20, 1775 ; that the declaration, the by-
laws, and the regulations were read to the assem-
bled multitude by Colonel Thomas Polk ; but he
would undoubtedly have scorned the suggestion
that substantially the same measures were adopted
at two meetings held eleven days apart.
Colonel William Polk, a son of Colonel Thomas
Polk, was the first to prepare his statement after
the publication of the supposititious document in
1819, the most active in collecting testimony to
support its authenticity, and the most circumstan-
tial in his account of the events of 1775. Colonel
Polk was a youth of sixteen in May, 1775. He
used the Alexander narrative freely in preparing
his own, and copied the Alexander resolutions
from a manuscript copy given him by Dr. Joseph
McKnitt Alexander which he could not vouch to
be "in the words of the Committee who framed
them." After scraping his memory to make room
for these resolutions, Colonel Polk recollected:
In addition to the foregoing resolutions, a number of
other resolutions & bye laws were adopted. Courts of Jus-
tice were held by & under the direction of the Delegates.
.... A Committee of Safety was selected from the whole
Delegation, to whom was given power to examine all persons
brought before them who were charged or suspected of being
inimical to the cause of freedom & the safety of the Country.
This was the formal work of the meeting held on
May 31,1 775. But we are not left merely to infer-
ential reasoning in order to affirm that the material
Testimony of the Witnesses 213
facts stated in Colonel Folk's narrative were recol-
lected by John McKnitt Alexander and not by
himself. John Simeson wrote to Colonel Polk,
January 20, 1820, in reply to a request for infor-
mation : " Yourself, sir, in your eighteenth year
and on the spot, your worthy father, the most pop-
ular and influential character in the county, and
yet you cannot state much from recollection ! "
George Graham, William Hutchison, Jonas Clark,
and Robert Robison united in a single depo-
sition, which was given at the request of Colonel
William Polk and published February 18, 1820.
Two of them were seventeen and two about twenty-
four years of age on the remote occasion of which
they wrote, yet their joint certificate involves
many minute details, and was evidently written by
some one who tried to group together all that was
known on the subject. The use of the terms " del-
egate" and " delegation " for "Committee" and
" Committee-man " shows how closely the Alexan-
der narrative was adhered to. Although they
assent to the date of May 20, 1775, these four wit-
nesses aver that at the time when the declaration
was adopted " a Committee of Safety for the
county were elected, who were clothed with civil
and military power, and under their authority sev-
eral disaffected persons " were arrested, tried, and
deported. The ordinances to this effect were
adopted at the meeting of May 31, 1775.
The foregoing eight witnesses are the only ones
among the fourteen summoned who confessed to
any recollection concerning the terms of the reso-
214 The Mecklenburg Declaration
lutions which they understood to be a declaration
of independence. The certificates of these eight,
with the exception of John Simeson's, bear internal
evidence of having been prepared with the aid of
the narrative and resolutions published in 1819.
All eight, with the very significant exception of
John Simeson, stated that the declaration was
made May 20, 1775. Simeson had evidently seen
the resolutions in the Raleigh Register of April 30,
1819, but forgot their date so soon afterwards that
in January following he could only say that the
resolutions which he had in mind were passed
"towards the close of May, 1775."
Of the remaining six witnesses, Isaac Alexander,
writing in 1830 after May 20, 1775, had become
commonly known as the date of the declaration
and its anniversary celebrated alone repeated that
date. Among the five who could not give the
exact date were the men most likely to have remem-
bered it if any could have done so without refresh-
ing their memories by a sight of the published
document Captain James Jack, the bearer of the
resolutions which all had in mind to the Continental
Congress, and John Davidson, the sole surviving
member of the body that adopted them who testi-
fied. 1 Captain Jack, writing from his home in
Georgia in December, 1819, said that he had "seen
in the newspapers some pieces respecting the
1 Another member, David Reese, is referred to in the Western
Carolinian (Salisbury, N. C.) of May 17, 1825, as then living in Cabarrus
County. Lyman C. Draper, however, believed that the reputed " signer "
of that name died in 1787.
Testimony of the Witnesses 215
Declaration of Independence by the people of
Mecklenburg county, in the State of North Caro-
lina, in May, 1775." He could not, however, trust
his memory to supply even the month in which the
declaration was made, for he stated that he set out
for Philadelphia "the following month, say June."
Neither could John Davidson, a reputed "signer"
of the declaration, although he wrote as late as
1830, and must have heard it stated many times dur-
ing the previous decade. But " being far advanced
in years," wrote Davidson, "and not having my
mind frequently directed to that circumstance for
some years, I can give you but a very succinct
history of the transaction. ... I am confident
that the Declaration of Independence by the people
of Mecklenburg was made public at least twelve
months before that of the Congress of the United
States."
Rev. Francis Cummins, of Georgia, seems to
have been the only witness who testified before he
had seen the publication of 1819. He was a
student in Charlotte in May, 1775. Captain Jack
said in 1819 that Cummins was "as well, or per-
haps better acquainted with the proceedings of that
time than any man now living." But in November,
1819, Cummins could not state with certainty even
the year in which the declaration was promulgated.
His imperfect memory told him that before it was
adopted he and many others in Mecklenburg " ab-
jured allegiance to George III. or any other for-
eign power" before magistrates, and a subsequent
declaration of independence was therefore entirely
216 The Mecklenburg Declaration
in keeping with his confused recollections of the
trend of sentiment toward independence at that
period. " At length," he wrote, " in the same year,
1775, I think, at least positively before July 4, 1776,
the males generally of that county met on a certain
day in Charlotte, and from the head of the Court
house stairs proclaimed independence of English
Government, by their herald, Col. Thomas Polk." l
Samuel Wilson, in an undated certificate, said that
the " committee or delegation " declared indepen-
dence "in May, 1775." James Johnson, in 1827,
also gave the date as " May, 1 775." From the tes-
timony of these six Mecklenburg fathers who could
not remember the date, it certainly seems most
probable that not one of the eight who testified to
the date of May 20, 1775, ever associated that date
with the resolutions which they understood to be
a declaration of independence before the Alexander
paper was published in 1819. If there was such a
one, it cannot be shown that he did not learn that
date in 1800 or later, directly or indirectly from
John McKnitt Alexander.
With respect to the disputed secretaryship of the
meeting which is alleged to have declared indepen-
dence, the preponderance of the testimony of the
fourteen witnesses is still more emphatically against
the accuracy of John McKnitt Alexander's remi-
1 Cummins reiterated his statement in a pamphlet containing a sermon
delivered by him July 4, 1819, published in Greensboro, Ga., in the same
year. The pamphlet is noticed in the N. C. Univ. Mag., October, 1859, ix.,
181. As the reference to the Mecklenburg Declaration is in the form of a
note to pages 17 and 18 and mentions the month in which the declaration
was made, which Cummins could not recollect in November, 1819, the note
was no doubt written, and the pamphlet published, at a later date.
Testimony of the Witnesses 217
niscences. When we consider the circumstances
under which they testified, it is surprising that half
their number should have controverted Alexan-
der's statement that he acted as secretary to the
meeting, and named in that relation Ephraim Bre-
vard, the recorded secretary of the meeting of May
31, 1775. As soon as Colonel William Polk saw
the Alexander paper in 1819, he assured the editor
of the Raleigh Register 1 "of the correctness of the
facts generally, tho' he thought there were errors as
to the name of the Secretary, &c., and said that he
should probably be able to correct these, and throw
further light on the subject by inquiries amongst
some of his old friends in Mecklenburg County." In
the paper which he wrote in August, 1819, the month
in which the editor of the Raleigh Register first an-
nounced this fact, Colonel Polk maintains that his
father, not Adam Alexander, was the colonel com-
mandant of Mecklenburg who issued the order for
the meeting, and that Ephraim Brevard, not John
McKnitt Alexander, acted as secretary ; and he
shows that he doubted whether Abraham Alexan-
der was chairman. Six witnesses, including Isaac
Alexander, a cousin of John McKnitt Alexander,
confirmed Colonel Polk's recollections concerning
the secretaryship of the meeting. Seven also recol-
lected as he did that Ephraim Brevard was author
of the declaration of independence. General Jo-
seph Graham alone certified to the presence of
John McKnitt Alexander as sole secretary of the
meeting. As in the case of a witness who said that
1 Raldgh Register, Feb. 18, 1820.
218 The Mecklenburg Declaration
the body which adopted the declaration was a " com-
mittee or delegation," Humphrey Hunter sought to
reconcile his own recollections with those of John
McKnitt Alexander by designating both Brevard
and Alexander as secretaries. In the records of the
committees of the Revolutionary period organized
under the articles of American Association we find
no instance of a dual secretaryship. Alexander was
probably secretary of the Mecklenburg committee
shortly before or after the meeting referred to in his
narrative.
As six witnesses stated positively, with Colonel
William Polk, that Thomas Polk, not Adam Alex-
ander, issued the order for the meeting which is said
to have declared independence, the editors of the
State Pamphlet substituted Polk's name for Alexan-
der's in their purported reprint of the paper pub-
lished in the Raleigh Register of April 30, 1 8 1 9. At
the head of the reprinted paper stands the reference
to the Raleigh Register in the usual form, but no
mention or explanation of this unwarrantable liberty
is made. The same alteration was made in the
original manuscript in an unknown handwriting.
The story of the signing of the Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence was probably copied,
like the declaration itself, from what was done at
Philadelphia in 1776. John McKnitt Alexander
failed to record it in his account of the proceedings
of the famous meeting. The story seems to have
originated in 1819. Colonel William Polk and the
joint certificate of four survivors of May, 1775,
which was prepared at his instance, stated that the
Testimony of the Witnesses 219
declaration was subscribed by all the members of
the body that passed it ; but no other witnesses
confirm them, not even John Davidson, one of the
reputed " signers." Colonel Folk's manuscript gives
the names of fifteen " delegates " to the meeting,
the joint certificate seven others, and John Sime-
son's letter two others. A list of these twenty-
four, with the addition of the name of Henry
Downs, is contained in the address of Dr. Moses
Winslow Alexander, delivered July 5, 1824. As
fifteen of the names in the list are nearly in the
same order in which they were recollected by Col-
onel Polk, and as two of these fifteen are not men-
tioned in any certificate of earlier date than Dr.
Alexander's address except Colonel Folk's, it is
likely that the list was first published by Judge
Archibald DeBow Murphey with the revised Polk
narrative in the lost Hillsboro Recorder of March,
1821. Rev. Humphrey Hunter's autobiography,
written in 1827, enumerates these twenty-five names
and adds that of Richard Harris, Sen. Hunter
changed their order to make them, "according to
my best recollection and belief," he said, "as they
were placed on the roll " ! The " official " list of
" Delegates Present," published in the State Pamph-
let, is a copy of Dr. Moses W. Alexander's with the
addition of the name of Richard Harris, Sen., which
should have been Robert Harris.
In a letter to Colonel Paul B. Means, dated May
15, 1879, Professor Charles Phillips said 1 :
1 May, /773 1 , 26. This pamphlet, published in Greensboro, N. C.,
in 1887, was suppressed for typographical blunders.
220 The Mecklenburg Declaration
Governor Swain had another manuscript which he would
not let me publish. It purported to be a list of the delegates
to the meeting of May 2oth, 1775, but not of contemporary
authority. It had been doctored in several places names
having been struck out and others of the Alexander family
and connexion inserted. The origin and history of that
paper was unknown, ....
Professor Phillips stated that this paper "had
evidently been used," and that it was probably got-
ten up for Dr. Moses W. Alexander's address.
A handbill containing the first three resolutions
of May 20, 1775, and thirty-one names appended,
is reproduced in facsimile in Johnson's Traditions
of the Revolution (1851), in the New York Herald
of May 20, 1875, and in Wheeler's Reminiscences
of North Carolina, as "the oldest publication of
the Mecklenburg declaration yet discovered in
print, "and as probably dating about the year 1800.
In his Charlotte address of 1875 Governor Gra-
ham laid much stress upon this paper and upon a
copy printed on satin which was once owned by
Andrew Jackson. Very shortly afterwards, it was
learned from Colonel F. S. Heiskell, who printed
them, and Dr. J. G. M. Ramsey, who prepared
them, that they were printed in Knoxville, Tenn.,
in 1825 or thereabouts. 1 Ramsey wrote Judge
A. D. Murphey, April 9, 1827, that he had the
broadside printed and wished to send him a copy. 2
His list of "signers" is made up of Dr. Moses W.
Alexander's and of the names of six men mentioned
1 Daily Press and Herald (Knoxville), May 23, 1875. Cf. Mag. of
Amtr. Hist., xxi., 233 ; and May, 7775, 23.
* Murphey papers.
Testimony of the Witnesses 221
in Captain Jack's certificate as having been among
those who " appeared to take the lead" in the trans-
actions of May, 1775.*
The well-known facsimile of the " Autographs
of the Members of the Mecklenburg Committee,"
which is sometimes appended to printed copies of
the Mecklenburg Declaration, was prepared by
Benson J. Lossing from autographs furnished by
Governor Swain and others, and first published in
1851-52 in Lossing's Pictorial Field-Book of the
Revolution?
1 These six are Major John Davidson, Gen, William Lee Davidson,
Capt. Ezekiel Polk (grandfather of President James K. Polk), Samuel
Martin, Duncan Ochiltree, and William Wilson. None of them are men-
tioned in the list made up by the editors of the State Pamphlet, and proba-
bly none but the first named belong there. Capt. Jack did not say that they
attended the meeting of which he wrote. Gen. Davidson could hardly have
been present, as he was at that time a resident of Rowan county and a
member of the Rowan Committee of Safety. With respect to Ezekiel
Polk, Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., has furnished this information: "In 1774
Ezekiel Polk was lieutenant-colonel of the militia regiment of the New Ac-
quisition of South Carolina and in December, 1774, ne was elected a dep-
uty from the New Acquisition to the Provincial Congress of South Carolina
and was still a member of that body in May, 1775. On the I2th of June
he was elected by this Congress a captain in the 3d Regiment of South Car-
olina ; was commissioned on the i8th, and by the i8th of July had raised
his company and was in service, and he did not become a citizen of Meck-
lenburg County until 1778." We know nothing concerning Samuel Martin,
Duncan Ochiltree, and William Wilson. The "official" list of twenty-
six delegates in the State Pamphlet contains the names of probably all the
participants at the meeting of May 31, 1775, except John Davidson's.
There is strong evidence that Robert Harris, whose name is there erro-
neously given as Richard, has no claim to that honor. The name " Ford *'
in the State Pamphlet should be written " Foard."
5 The facsimile may also be found in Cooke's Revolutionary History
of N. C. (1853), Gov. Graham's Address, Winsor's Narrative and Critical
History of America > Charlotte Daily Observer , May 20, 1906, etc,
APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS.
WS
A.
COLONEL POLK S COPY OF THE DOCUMENT PREPARED
BY " J. MC KNITT " FROM HIS FATHER^ PAPERS
AND PUBLISHED WITH EMENDATIONS IN THE
"RALEIGH REGISTER," APRIL 30, 1819.*
Copy of Jo. M? K. Alexanders letter to
W Davidson on Declaration of Independence Meek?
N. Carolina )
Mecklenburg j May 20. 1775
In the Spring of 1775, the leading characters of Mecklenb*
C; stimulated by that enthusiastic patriotism, which
elevates the mind above considerations of individual
aggrandizement, & scorning to shelter themselves from
the impending storm by submission to lawless power, &c
&c held several meetings detachedly in each of which
the individual sentiments were "that the cause of Boston
was the cause of all ; that their destinies were indissolubly
connected with those of their Eastern fellow Citizens &
that they must either submit to all the impositions which
an unprincipled & to them an unrepresented Parliment
might impose ; or support their Brethern who were doomed
to sustain the first shock of that power which if successful
there, would ultimately overwhelm all in the common
calamity Conformably to these principles Col. Adam
1 From the original manuscript in the New York Public Library (Emmet :
1494). It was probably enclosed in Folk's letter of Aug. 18, 1819, to Judge
A. D. Murphey, with his own narrative. It came from the Murphey
papers.
225
*\ " i;
226 Appendix of Documents
Alexander through solicitation issued an order to each
Capt s company in the County of Mecklenburg, then com-
prising the present County of Cabarrus directing each
militia Capt 5 company to elect two persons and delegate
to them ample power to devise ways & means to aid,
assist their suffering brethern in Boston and also generally
to adopt measures to extricate themselves from the im-
pending storm & to secure unimpaired their invaluable
rights priviledges & liberties from the dominant grasp of
British imposition & tyranny. In conformity to said
order on the 19. of May 1775 the said delegation met in
Charlotte town vested with unlimited powers, at which
time official news by express arived of the Battle of Lex-
ington on that of the preceeding month every Delegate
felt the value and importance of the prize and the awful
& solemn crisis which had arived every bosom swelled
with indignation at the malice, inveteracy and unsatiable
revenge developed in the late attack at Lexington. The
universal sentiment was, let us not flatter ourselves that
popular harangues or resolves, that popular vapour will
avert the storm, or vanquish our common enemy; let us
deliberate let us calculate the issue the probable result,
and what is still more endearing the liberties of America
Abraham Alexander was then elected Ch? & Jn M C K.
Alexander Cl* after a free and full description of the
various objects for which the delegation had been con-
vened it was unanimously ordained.
i 5 . 1 Resolved That whosoever directly or indirectly abet-
ted, or in any way form or manner countenanced the un-
chartered and dangerous invasion of our rights as claimed
by G Britain is an enemy to this country, to America, & to
the inherent & inalienable rights of Man.
2. Resolved, That ["That" is in brackets] We the Cit-
izens of Mecklenburg County do hereby dissolve the po-
litical bands which have connected us to the mother
country & hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to
the British Crown and abjure all political connection,
"J. McKnitt" Document 227
contract or association with that Nation, who have wantonly
trampled on our rights and liberties & inhumanly shed the
innocent blood of our American Patriots at Lexington.
3? Resolved We do hereby declare ourselves a free &
independent People are & ought of right ought to be a
soverign & self governing association under the controul
of no power other than that of our God & the general
Goverment of the Congress, to the maintainance of which
independence we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual
cooperation our lives our fortunes & our most sacred
honor.
4 That [' ' That ' ' is written over the ' ' As "] As we now ac-
knowledge the existence and controul of no law or legal
Officer civil or military within this Country We do hereby
ordain and adopt as a rule of Life all and each of our former
laws wherein nevertheless the Crown of G. B. never can be
considered as holding rights priviledges, immunities or
authority therin.
5. Resolved. That ["That" is written a little above
the line] It is also further decreed that all, each & every
military Officer in this County is hereby reinstated to his
former command and authority he acting conformably to
these regulations, And that every Member present of this
delegation shall henceforth be a civil Officer Viz a Justice
of the Peace in the character of a Committee man, to is-
sue process, hear & determine all matters of controversy
according to s? adopted Laws & to preserve Peace union &
harmony in s<? County and to use every exertion to spread
the love of Country & fire of freedom throught America;
untill a more general & organised goverment be established
in this Province.
A number of bye laws were also added merely to protect
the association from confusion and to regulate their general
conduct as Citizens
After sitting in the C! House all night, neither sleepy,
hungry or fatigued, and after discussing every paragraph,
they were all passed sanctioned & decreed Unanimously
228 Appendix of Documents
about 2. Clock A M. May 20. In a few days a deputation
of s? delegation convened when Cap James Jack of Charlotte
was deputed as express to the Congress in ["at" is written
over ''in"] Philadelphia with a copy of s? Resolves & Pro-
ceedings together with a letter address? to our three Repre-
sentatives there Viz R? Caswell W? 1 Hooper & Jos.
Hughes under express injunction personally & through
the State representation to use all possible means to have
said proceedings sanctioned & approved by the general
Congress.
On the return of Cap* Jack the delegation learn'd their
proceedings were individually approved by the Members
of Congress but it was deemed premature to lay them
before the House a joint letter from s? 3 Members of Con-
gress was also rec? complimentary of the zeal in the
common cause & recommending perseverance order &
energy.
The subsequent harmony exertion and unanimity in
the cause of liberty & independency evidently resulting
from these regulations & the continued exertion of si
delegation apparantly tranquilised this section of the
State & met with the concurrence & high approbation of
the Council of safety who held their sessions at Newbern
& W. m ton alternately & who confirmed the nomination &
acts of the Delegation in their official capacity.
From this Delegation originated the C* of enquiry of
this County who constituted and held their first session in
Charlotte; they then held their meetings regularly at
Charlotte, Col? James Harris's & at Col. Phifers alternately
one week at each place. It was civil court founded on
military process before this judication all suspicious
persons were made to appear (who were formerly tryed
& banished or continued under guard
Its jurisdiction was as unlimited as toryism and its
decrees as final as the confidence & patriotism of the
country several were arrested & brought before them
from Lincoln Rowan & the adjacent Counties Booth &
"J. McKnitt " Document 229
Dunn lawyers were brought from Salisbury tryed convicted
& banished &c
J M c K Alexander Sen'
The foregoing is a true copy of the papers on the above
subject left in my hands by J. M? A-dec. I find it men-
tioned on file that the original book was burned Ap? 1 800
That a copy of the proceedings was sent to H. Wson in
N. Y. then writing a History of N. C. & that a copy was
sent to Gen 1 Davie.
J McKnitt
[The manuscript is endorsed by Colonel Polk:
"Copy of letter to W m
Davidson at Congress
with the decleration
of Independence by the
C of Mecklenburg
May 20. 1775"]
CITIZENS OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY, 1775.
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CUMBERLAND ASSOCIATION
PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNOR,
Under the authority and direction of the General Assembly of the State of
NORTH CAROLINA.
RALEIGH :
LAWRENCE & LEMAY, Printers to the State.
1831.
PREFACE.
The resolution of the General Assembly directing this
publication, makes it the duty of the Governor to cause
to be published in pamphlet form the Report of the com-
mittee relative to the Declaration of Independence, and
the accompanying documents, in the following order, viz.
i. The Mecklenburg Declaration, with the names of the
Delegates composing the meeting; 2. The certificates tes-
tifying to the circumstances attending the Declaration;
and 3. The proceedings of the Cumberland Association.
In the discharge of this duty, the Governor has deemed
it proper to prefix to the publication the following brief
review of the evidence by which the authenticity of this
interesting portion of the history of North Carolina is
controverted and sustained.
On the 3oth of April, 1819, the publication marked A,
made its appearance in the Raleigh Register. It was
communicated to the Editors of that paper by Doct.
Joseph M'Nitt, then and now a citizen of the county of
Mecklenburg, and was speedily republished in most of
the newspapers in the Union. A paper containing it (the
Essex Register) was, it seems, on the 226. June, 1819,
enclosed to Mr. Jefferson, by his illustrious compatriot
John Adams, accompanied with the remark, that he thought
it genuine; and this suggestion of Mr. Adams elicited the
following reply, which was at that time published in
various newspapers, and has been since given to the world
in the 4th volume of Mr. Jefferson's Works, page 314-:
231
232 Appendix of Documents
TO JOHN ADAMS.
"Monticello, July 9, 1819.
"DEAR SIR, I am in debt to you for your letters of May
the 2ist, 2yth, and June the 22nd. The first, delivered
me by Mr. Greenwood, gave me the gratification of his
acquaintance; and a gratification it always is, to be made
acquainted with gentlemen of candor, worth, and infor-
mation, as I found Mr. Greenwood to be. That on the
subject of Mr. Samuel Adams Wells, shall not be for-
gotten in time and place, when it can be used to his
advantage.
" But what has attracted my peculiar notice, is the paper
from Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, published
in the Essex Register, which you were so kind as to enclose
in your last, of June the 22nd. And you seem to think it
genuine. I believe it spurious. I deem it to be a very
unjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely
related to us as having broken out in North Carolina,
some half dozen years ago, in that part of the country,
and perhaps in that very county of Mecklenburg, for I do
not remember its precise locality. If this paper be really
taken from the Raleigh Register, as quoted, I wonder it
should have escaped Richie, who culls what is good from
every paper, as the bee from every flower ; and the National
Intelligencer, too, which is edited by a North Carolinian:
and that the fire should blaze out all at once in Essex, one
thousand miles from where the spark is said to have fallen.
But if really taken from the Raleigh Register, who is the
narrator, and is the name subscribed real, or is it as fic-
titious as the paper itself? It appeals, too, to an original
book, which is burnt, to Mr. Alexander, who is dead, to a
joint letter from Caswell, Hughes, and Hooper, all dead,
to a copy sent to the dead Caswell, and another sent to
Doctor Williamson, now probably dead, whose memory
did not recollect, in the history he has written of North
Carolina, this gigantic step of its county of Mecklenburg.
State Pamphlet 233
Horry, too, is silent in his history of Marion, whose scene
of action was the country bordering on Mecklenburg.
Ramsay, Marshall, Jones, Girardin, Wirt, historians of
the adjacent States, all silent. When Mr. Henry's resolu-
tions, far short of independence, flew like lightning through
every paper, and kindled both sides of the Atlantic, this
flaming declaration of the same date, of the independence
of Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, absolving it
from the British allegiance, and abjuring all political con-
nection with that nation, although sent to Congress, too,
is never heard of. It is not known even a twelvemonth
after, when a similar proposition is first made in that body.
Armed with this bold example, would not you have ad-
dressed our timid brethren in peals of thunder, on their
tardy fears? Would not every advocate of independence
have rung the glories of Mecklenburg county, in North
Carolina, in the ears of the doubting Dickinson and others,
who hung so heavily on us? Yet the example of independ-
ent Mecklenburg county, in North Carolina, was never once
quoted. The paper speaks, too, of the continued exertions
of their delegation (Caswell, Hooper, Hughes,) 'in the
cause of liberty and independence.' Now, you remember
as well as I do, that we had not a greater tory in Congress
than Hooper; that Hughes was very wavering, sometimes
firm, sometimes feeble, according as the day was clear or
cloudy; that Caswell, indeed, was a good whig, and kept
these gentlemen to the notch, while he was present; but
that he left us soon, and their line of conduct became then
uncertain until Penn came, who fixed Hughes, and the
vote of the State. I must not be understood as suggesting
any doubtfulness in the State of North Carolina. No
State was more fixed or forward. Nor do I affirm, posi-
tively, that this paper is a fabrication: because the proof
of a negative can only be presumptive. But I shall believe
it such until positive and solemn proof of its authenticity
shall be produced. And if the name of McKnitt be real,
and not a part of the fabrication, it needs a vindication
234 Appendix of Documents
by the production of such proof. For the present, I must
be an unbeliever in the apocryphal gospel.
" I am glad to learn that Mr. Ticknor has safely returned
to his friends; but should have been much more pleased
had he accepted the Professorship in our University,
which we should have offered him in form. Mr. Bowditch,
too, refuses us; so fascinating is the vinculum of the dulce
natale solum. Our wish is to procure natives, where they
can be found, like these gentlemen, of the first order of
acquirement in their respective lines; but preferring
foreigners of the first order to natives of the second, we
shall certainly have to go, for several of our Professors,
to countries more advanced in science than we are.
"I set out within three or four days for my other home,
the distance of which, and its cross mails, are great im-
pediments to epistolary communications. I shall remain
there about two months; and there, here, and every
where, I am and shall always be, affectionately and
respectfully yours. " TH : JEFFERSON."
The republication of this letter in a work which is
intended for, and will go down to posterity, recommended
alike by its intrinsic excellence, and the illustrious name of
the author, has imposed upon the Legislature the task of
proving that, with regard to this particular fact, Mr.
Jefferson was mistaken, and that his opinion was made up
from a very superficial and inaccurate examination of the
publication in the Raleigh Register, the only evidence
then before him, and upon which his letter is a commentary.
The letter itself was evidently written currente calamo,
and for that reason may not be regarded as a fair subject
for severe criticism. It is not intended to subject it to
such a test, nor is it designed to examine it further than
may be necessary to the ascertainment of truth. Of the
ability, the purity, the patriotism of the author, it is un-
necessary to speak. His love of country was not bounded
by the confines of Virginia; but it is no discredit to his
State Pamphlet 235
memory that her institutions, her heroes and her states-
men occupied the first place in his affections. She was
emphatically 'the mother of great men,' and 'his own,
his native land;' and it is no matter of surprize that he
should be unwilling, without the most ample proof, to
transfer the brightest page of her history to emblazon the
records of a sister State. Mr. Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry
had just been published, and for the latter was claimed
the high distinction of having been the first to give motion
to the ball of the Revolution. Mr. Jefferson himself was
the author of the Declaration of Independence by Congress,
and was not disposed to share in any degree the immor-
tality with which it had crowned him, with a compara-
tively obscure citizen of North Carolina; and, therefore,
the evidence which was at once satisfactory to Mr.
Adams, is by him pronounced "to be a very unjustifiable
quiz."
The grounds for this opinion, in the order in which they
are given to Mr. Adams, are, i. That the story is "like
that of the volcano* having broken out in that part of
the country, and perhaps in that very county of Mecklenburg.'"
2. "If this paper be really taken from the Raleigh Register,
as quoted, I wonder it should have escaped Richie," &c.
"and that the fire should blaze out all at once in Essex,
one thousand miles from where the spark is said to have
fallen." 3. " But if really taken from the Raleigh Register,
who is the narrator, and is the name subscribed real, or is it
as -fictitious as the paper itself?" 4. "It appeals, too, to an
original book, which is burnt, to Mr. Alexander, who is
dead, to a joint letter from Caswell, Hewes and Hooper,
all dead, to a copy sent to the dead Caswell, and another
sent to Doctor Williamson, now probably dead, whose
memory did not recollect, in the history he has written of
*The hoax alluded to was published in 1812, and represented
the volcano as having broken out in the neighborhood of the Warm
Springs, in Buncombe, a point nearly as distant from the county
of Mecklenburg as from Monticello.
236 Appendix of Documents
North Carolina, this gigantic step of its county of Mecklen-
burg" &c. &c.
Without further remark with regard to the first point
the quiz about the volcano or the second, whether the
"spurious" paper was really published in the Raleigh
Register, it is proper to say, in reply to the third argument,
that the name subscribed is real, that the individual still
lives, that he is moreover a credible witness, and that it
is to his laudable attention and exertions that the State
is indebted for the preservation of much of the testimony
which is now offered to the public. The fourth argument
demands, and will receive more particular attention and
examination.
The paper appeals to a book, which is burnt; to Mr.
Alexander, who is dead; to Messrs. Caswell, Hooper and
Hewes, all dead; to a copy sent to "THE DEAD CASWELL,"
and another, sent to Doct. Williamson, probably dead;
are the consecutive facts which Mr. Jefferson states, and
on which he relies. Admit the premises, and the conclusion
would be probable, though not inevitable; and a writer
of much less ability, if permitted to assume his facts,
might predicate upon them not only a very plausible, but
an unanswerable argument. The very fact, however, on
which Mr. Jefferson rests, as the climax of improbabilities,
is not only not proved to exist, but, upon his own shewing,
does not exist; and justifies the remark in the outset, that
his letter was written in haste, upon a very superficial and
imperfect view of the subject. The paper does not appeal
"TO THE DEAD CASWELL," but to the then LIVING DAVIE,
a native of the section of country in which the event
occurred, like the former, a distinguished hero of the
revolution, and, in every respect, a proper depositary of
the record. The following is the statement in question:
(See the paper A.) ("The foregoing is a true copy of the
papers, on the above subject, left in my hands by John
M'Nitt Alexander, dec'd. I find it mentioned on file, that
the original book was burned April, 1800. That a copy of
State Pamphlet 237
the proceedings was sent to fHugh Williamson, in New
York, then writing a history of North Carolina, and that a
copy was sent to Gen. W. R. DAVIE.") Gen. Davie died
shortly after the date of Mr. Jefferson's letter; but this
identical copy, known by the writer of these remarks to be
in the handwriting of John M'Nitt Alexander, one of the
Secretaries of the Mecklenburg meeting, is now in the
Executive Office of this State. (See Doct. Henderson's
certificate, B.) Caswell, Hooper and Hewes are all dead;
but Capt. Jack, who was appointed to carry to them, at
Philadelphia, this Mecklenburg Declaration, lived long
enough to bear testimony to the truth ; and his statement
(C) is circumstantial, explicit and satisfactory. If it needed
confirmation, it would be found to be fully sustained by
the interesting communication (D) of the late Rev. Francis
Cummins, D. D. of Georgia, to the Hon. Nathaniel Macon.
More satisfactory evidence, drawn from more respectable
sources, Mr. Jefferson, if alive, could not, and would not
require. It is not hazarding too much to say, that there is
no one event of the Revolution which has been, or can be
more fully or clearly authenticated.
It is, perhaps, needless to multiply proofs, or to extend
this article. Col. William Polk is a resident of this city,
a venerable remnant of the revolutionary stock, has passed
the common boundary of human life, and in a green old
age, is in the full possession of his faculties. His compa-
triots, Caswell, and Hooper, and Hewes, are dead, but he
lives, was present, heard his father proclaim the Declaration
t This copy the writer well recollects to have seen in the possession
of Doct. Williamson, in the 1793, in Fayetteville, together with a
letter to him from John McNitt Alexander, and to have conversed
with him on the subject. Why it is not mentioned in his History,
is not strange to any one who knows the State, and has read the book.
It cannot be regarded as a history of any country. The memorable
Report and Resolutions of the Congress of April, 1776, are alike
unnoticed. A correct and satisfactory account of both proceedings,
will be found in the last chapter of Martin's History of North
Carolina.
238 Appendix of Documents
to the assembled multitude; and need it be inquired, in
any portion of this Union, if he will be believed?
The letter (E) of Gen. Joseph Graham, another surviving
officer of the Revolution, a citizen and a soldier worthy
of the best days of the Republic, will be read with pleasure
and perfect confidence throughout the wide range of his
acquaintance.
The extract from the memoir of the late Rev. Humphrey
Hunter, (F) of Lincoln, is equally explicit, full and satis-
factory. He, with several other respectable gentlemen,
whose statements are appended, was an eye witness of
what he relates; and the combined testimony of all these
individuals prove the existence of the Mecklenburg Declara-
tion, and all the circumstances connected with it, as fully
and clearly as any fact can be shewn by human testimony.
The following extract from "The Journal of the Provin-
cial Congress of North Carolina, held at Halifax, on the
4th of April, 1776," (pa. n, 12,) shews that the first legis-
lative recommendation of a DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
by the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, originated likewise in the
State of North Carolina. It is worthy of remark, that
John McNitt Alexander, the Secretary of the meeting,
Waightstell Avery, John Pfifer and Robert Irwin, who were
conspicuous actors in the proceedings in Mecklenburg,
were active and influential members of this Provincial
Congress.
"The select committee to take into consideration the
usurpations and violences attempted and committed by
the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and
the further measures to be taken for frustrating the same,
and for the better defence of this Province, reported as
follows, to wit:
"It appears to your committee, that pursuant to the
plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating
America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have
usurped a power over the persons and properties of the
State Pamphlet 239
people unlimited and uncontrolled ; and disregarding
their humble petitions for peace, liberty and safety, have
made divers legislative acts, denouncing war, famine, and
every species of calamity, against the Continent in general.
The British fleets and armies have been, and still are daily
employed in destroying the people, and committing the
most horrid devastations on the country. That Governors
in different Colonies have declared protection to slaves,
who should imbrue their hands in the blood of their masters.
That the ships belonging to America are declared prizes
of war, and many of them have been violently seized and
confiscated. In consequence of all which multitudes of the
people have been destroyed, or from easy circumstances
reduced to the most lamentable distress.
"And whereas the moderation hitherto manifested by
the United Colonies, and their sincere desire to be recon-
ciled to the mother country on constitutional principles,
have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid wrongs and
usurpations, and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by
those means alone which have been hitherto tried, your
committee are of opinion that the House should enter
into the following resolve, to wit:
"Resolved, That the DELEGATES FOR THIS COLONY IN
THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS BE IMPOWERED TO CONCUR
WITH THE DELEGATES OF THE OTHER COLONIES IN DECLAR-
ING INDEPENDENCY, AND FORMING FOREIGN ALLIANCES,
reserving to this Colony the sole and exclusive right of
forming a Constitution and laws for this Colony, and of
appointing Delegates from time to time, (under the direc-
tion of a general representation thereof,) to meet the
Delegates of the other Colonies, for such purposes as shall
be hereafter pointed out.
"The Congress taking the same into consideration,
unanimously concurred therewith."
The striking similarity of expression in the concluding
sentences of the Mecklenburg Declaration, and the Declara-
tion by Congress on the 4th of July, 1776, has been repeat-
240 Appendix of Documents
edly urged and relied upon as disproving the authenticity
of the former. It is scarcely necessary to reply to this
suggestion. It is not very strange that men who think
alike should speak alike upon the same subject, more
especially when high toned patriotic feeling seeks for
utterance. This similarity of expression is not confined,
however, to these two papers. A comparison of the fore-
going resolutions with the Declaration, as drawn by Mr.
Jefferson, will satisfy the most credulous upon this subject.
Who suspects Mr. Jefferson of intentional plagiarism? and
yet he might be charged with having appropriated the lan-
guage of the Provincial Legislature, with at least as much
propriety as Mr. Alexander with having forged the Meck-
lenburg Declaration. The sentiments embodied by Mr.
Jefferson were not peculiar to himself, but adopted by him
as expressive of the common feeling in the common
language of that eventful period.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
AND
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS.
REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS.
Adopted by the General Assembly at the session of iSjo-'ji, upon
which this publication is predicated.
The committee to whom it was referred to examine,
collate and arrange in proper order such parts of the
Journals of the Provincial Assemblies of North Carolina,
as relate to the Declaration of American Independence;
also such documents as relate to the Declaration of Inde-
pendence made by the patriotic men of Mecklenburg in
May, 1775; and also such measures as relate to the same
cause, adopted by the freemen of Cumberland county,
previous to the fourth of July, 1776, in order to the publi-
cation and distribution of such documents, having per-
formed the duty assigned them, respectfully report :
That upon an attentive examination of the Journals
of the Provincial Assembly of North Carolina, which met
at Halifax in the month of April, 1776, the committee are
of opinion, that no selection could be made from the said
Journal to answer the purpose of the House. But as
every thing relating to that period, must be interesting
to those who value the blessing of national independence,
the committee recommend that the whole of the Journal
241
242 Appendix of Documents
be printed, and receive the same extended distribution
which the resolution of the House contemplates for the
proceedings in Mecklenburg and Cumberland. This course
is deemed by the committee the more proper, because the
Journal is now out of print, and it is highly probable that
the copy in the possession of the committee is the only
one now extant.
Your committee have also examined, collated and ar-
ranged, all the documents which have been accessible to
them, touching the Declaration of Independence by the
citizens of Mecklenburg, and the proceedings of the freemen
of Cumberland.
By the publication of these papers, it will be fully veri-
fied, that as early as the month of May, 1775, a portion of
the people of North Carolina, sensible that their wrongs
could no longer be borne, without sacrificing both safety
and honor, and that redress so often sought, so patiently
waited for, and so cruelly delayed, was no longer to be
expected, did, by a public and solemn act, declare the
dissolution of the ties which bound them to the crown and
people of Great Britain, and did establish an independent,
though temporary government for their own control and
direction.
This first claim of Independence evinces such high senti-
ments of valor and patriotism, that we cannot, and ought
not lightly to esteem the honor of having made it. The fact
of the Declaration should be announced, its language
should be published and perpetuated, and the names of
the gallant representatives of Mecklenburg, with whom it
originated, should be preserved from an oblivion, which,
should it involve them, would as much dishonor us, as
injure them. If the thought of Independence did not first
occur to them, to them, at least, belongs the proud dis-
tinction of having first given language to the thought;
and it should be known, and, fortunately, it can still be
conclusively established, that the revolution received its
first impulse towards Independence, however feeble that
State Pamphlet 243
impulse might have been, in North Carolina. The com-
mittee are aware that this assertion has elsewhere been
received with doubt, and at times met with denial; and it
is, therefore, believed to be more strongly incumbent upon
the House to usher to the world the Mecklenburg Declara-
tion, accompanied with such testimonials of its genuineness,
as shall silence incredulity, and with such care for its
general diffusion, as shall forever secure it from being
forgotten. And in recounting the causes, the origin and
the progress of our revolutionary struggle, till its final
issue in acknowledged independence, whatever the brilliant
achievements of other States may have been, let it never
be forgotten, that at a period of darkness and oppression,
without concert with others, without assurances of support
from any quarter, a few gallant North Carolinians, all
fear of consequences lost in a sense of their country's
wrongs, relying, under Heaven, solely upon themselves,
nobly dared to assert, and resolved to maintain that
independence, of which, whoever might have thought,
none had then spoken; and thus earned for themselves,
and for their fellow-citizens of North Carolina, the honor
of giving birth to the first Declaration of Independence.
The committee respectfully recommend the adoption
of the following resolutions.
All of which is submitted.
THOS G. POLK, Chr'n
JOHN BRAGG,
EVAN ALEXANDER,
LOUIS D. HENRY,
ALEX. M'NEILL.
Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be directed
to cause to be published in pamphlet form the above
Report and the accompanying documents, in the manner
and order following, viz. After the Report, first, the
Mecklenburg Declaration, with the names of the Delegates
composing the meeting; second, the Certificates, testifying
244 Appendix of Documents
to the circumstances attending the Declaration; third,
the proceedings of the Cumberland Association; and that
he be further directed to have reprinted in like manner,
separate and distinct from the above, the accompanying
Journal of the Provincial Assembly, held at Halifax in
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six.
Resolved further, That after publication, the Governor
be instructed to distribute said documents as follows, to
wit: Twenty copies of each to the Library of the State;
to each of the Libraries at the University, ten copies; to
the Library of the Congress of the United States, ten
copies; and one copy to each of the Executives of the
several States of the Union.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
May 20, 1775.
NAMES OF THE DELEGATES PRESENT.
Col. Thomas Polk, John M'Knitt Alexander,
Ephraim Brevard, Hezekiah Alexander,
Hezekiah J. Balch, Adam Alexander,
John Phifer, Charles Alexander,
James Harris, Zacheus Wilson, Sen.
William Kennon, Waightstill Avery,
John Ford, Benjamin Patton,
Richard Barry, Matthew M'Clure,
Henry Downs, Neil Morrison,
Ezra Alexander, Robert Irwin,
William Graham, John Flenniken,
John Queary, David Reese,
Abraham Alexander, Richard Harris, Sen.
ABRAHAM ALEXANDER was appointed Chairman, and
JOHN M'KNITT ALEXANDER Clerk. The following resolu-
tions were offered, viz.
i st. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly
abetted, or in any way, form or manner, countenanced
State Pamphlet 245
the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as
claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this country, to
America, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
2d. Resolved, That we, the citizens of Mecklenburg
county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have
connected us to the mother country, and hereby absolve
ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown, and
abjure all political connection, contract, or association,
with that nation, who have wantonly trampled on our
rights and liberties, and inhumanly shed the blood of
American patriots at Lexington.
3d. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a
free and independent people ; are, and of right ought to be ?
a sovereign and self-governing Association, under the
control of no power other than that of our God and the
general government of the Congress; to the maintenance
of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other
our mutual co-operation, our lives, our fortunes, and our
most sacred honor.
4th. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence
and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military,
within this county, we do hereby ordain and adopt as a
rule of life, all, each and every of our former laws,
wherein, nevertheless, the crown of Great Britain never
can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities
or authority therein.
5th. Resolved, That it is further decreed, that all, each
and every military officer in this county, is hereby rein-
stated in his former command and authority, he acting
conformably to these regulations. And that every mem-
ber present, of this delegation, shall henceforth be a civil
officer, viz. a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a
"Committee-man" to issue process, hear and determine
all matters of controversy, according to said adopted
laws, and to preserve peace, union and harmony in said
county; and to use every exertion to spread the love of
country and fire of freedom throughout America, until
246 Appendix of Documents
a more general and organized government be established in
this province.
After discussing the foregoing resolves, and arranging
bye-laws and regulations for the government of a Standing
Committee of Public Safety, who were selected from these
delegates, the whole proceedings were unanimously adopted
and signed. A select committee was then appointed to
draw a more full and definite statement of grievances
and a more formal declaration of independence. The
Delegation then adjourned about 2 o'clock, A.M. May 20.
A
FROM THE RALEIGH REGISTER, OF APRIL 30, 1819.
It is not probably known to many of our readers, that the citizens
of Mecklenburg county, in this State, made Declaration of In-
dependence more than a year before Congress made theirs. The
following Document on the subject has lately come to the hands
of the Editor from unquestionable authority, and is published
that it may go down to posterity.
NORTH CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, )
May 20, 1775. f
In the spring of 1775* the leading characters of Mecklen-
burg county, stimulated by that enthusiastic patriotism
which elevates the mind above considerations of individual
aggrandizement, and scorning to shelter themselves from
the impending storm by submission to lawless power, &c.
&c. held several detached meetings, in each of which the
individual sentiments were, "that the cause of Boston was
the cause of all; that their destinies were indissolubly
connected with those of their Eastern fellow-citizens
and that they must either submit to all the impositions
which an unprincipled, and to them an unrepresented,
Parliament might impose or support their brethren who
were doomed to sustain the first shock of that power,
which, if successful there, would ultimately overwhelm all
in the common calamity." Conformably to these principles,
State Pamphlet 247
Colonel T. Polk, through solicitation, issued an order to
each Captain's company in the county of Mecklenburg,
(then comprising the present county of Cabarrus,) directing
each militia company to elect two persons, and delegate to
them ample power to devise ways and means to aid and
assist their suffering brethren in Boston, and also generally
to adopt measures to extricate themselves from the im-
pending storm, and to secure unimpaired their inalienable
rights, privileges and liberties, from the dominant grasp
of British imposition and tyranny.
In conformity to said order, on the ipth of May, 1775,
the said delegation met in Charlotte, vested with unlimited
powers; at which time official news, by express, arrived
of the battle of Lexington on that day of the preceding
month. Every delegate felt the value and importance of
the prize, and the awful and solemn crisis which had ar-
rived every bosom swelled with indignation at the malice,
inveteracy, and insatiable revenge, developed in the late
attack at Lexington. The universal sentiment was: let
us not flatter ourselves that popular harangues, or resolves ;
that popular vapour will avert the storm, or vanquish
our common enemy let us deliberate let us calculate
the issue the probable result; and then let us act with
energy, as brethren leagued to preserve our property
our lives and what is still more endearing, the liberties
of America. Abraham Alexander was then elected Chair-
man, and John M'Knitt Alexander, Clerk. After a free
and full discussion of the various objects for which the
delegation had been convened, it was unanimously or-
dained
1 . Resolved, That whoever directly or indirectly abetted,
or in any way, form or manner, countenanced the unchar-
tered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by
Great Britain, is an enemy to this country to America
and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
2 . Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg county,
do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected
248 Appendix of Documents
us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all
political connection, contract, or association, with that
nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and
liberties and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of
American patriots at Lexington.
3. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a
free and independent people, are, and of right ought to be,
a sovereign and self-governing Association, under the
control of no power other than that of our God and the
General Government of the Congress; to the maintenance
of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other,
our mutual co-operation, our lives, our fortunes, and our
most sacred honor.
4. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence
and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military,
within this county, we do hereby ordain and adopt, as a
rule of life, all, each and every of our former laws, wherein,
nevertheless, the Crown of Great Britain never can be
considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or
authority therein.
5. Resolved, That it is also further decreed, that all,
each and every military officer in this county, is hereby
reinstated to his former command and authority, he acting
conformably to these regulations. And that every member
present of this delegation shall henceforth be a civil officer,
viz. a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a " Committee-
man,'" to issue process, hear and determine all matters of
controversy, according to said adopted laws, and to pre-
serve peace, and union, and harmony, in said county,
and to use every exertion to spread the love of country
and fire of freedom throughout America, until a more
general and organized government be established in this
province.
A number of bye laws were also added, merely to protect
State Pamphlet 249
the association from confusion, and to regulate their general
conduct as citizens. After sitting in the Court House all
night, neither sleepy, hungry, nor fatigued, and after dis-
cussing every paragraph, they were all passed, sanctioned,
and decreed, unanimously, about 2 o'clock, A. M. May 20.
In a few days, a deputation of said delegation convened,
when Capt. James Jack, of Charlotte, was deputed as
express to the Congress at Philadelphia, with a copy of said
Resolves and Proceedings, together with a letter addressed
to our three representatives there, viz. Richard Caswell,
William Hooper and Joseph Hughes under express injunc-
tion, personally, and through the State representation, to
use all possible means to have said proceedings sanctioned
and approved by the General Congress. On the return
of Captain Jack, the delegation learned that their pro-
ceedings were individually approved by the Members of
Congress, but that it was deemed premature to lay them
before the House. A joint letter from said three members
of Congress was also received, complimentary of the zeal
in the common cause, and recommending perseverance,
order and energy.
The subsequent harmony, unanimity, and exertion in
the cause of liberty and independence, evidently resulting
from these regulations, and the continued exertion of said
delegation, apparently tranquilised this section of the
State, and met with the concurrence and high approbation
of the Council of Safety, who held their sessions at Newbern
and Wilmington, alternately, and who confirmed the
nomination and acts of the delegation in their official
capacity.
From this delegation originated the Court of Enquiry of
this county, who constituted and held their first session in
Charlotte they then held their meetings regularly at
Charlotte, at Col. James Harris's, and at Col. Phifers,
alternately, one week at each place. It was a Civil Court
founded on military process. Before this Judicature, all
suspicious persons were made to appear, who were formally
250 Appendix of Documents
tried and banished, or continued under guard. Its juris-
diction was as unlimited as toryism, and its decrees as final
as the confidence and patriotism of the county. Several
were arrested and brought before them from Lincoln,
Rowan and the adjacent counties.
[The foregoing is a true copy of the papers on the above
subject, left in my hands by John M'Knitt Alexander,
dec'd. I find it mentioned on file that the original book was
burned April, 1800. That a copy of the proceedings was
sent to Hugh Williamson, in New York, then writing a
History of North Carolina, and that a copy was sent to
Gen. W. R. Davie.
J. M'KNITT.]
B
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
MECKLENBURG COUNTY. j
I, Samuel Henderson, do hereby certify, that the paper
annexed was obtained by me from Maj. William Davie in
its present situation, soon after the death of his father,
Gen. William R. Davie, and given to Doct. Joseph M'Knitt
by me. In searching for some particular paper, I came
across this, and, knowing the hand writing of John M'Knitt
Alexander, took it up, and examined it. Maj. Davie said to
me (when asked how it became torn) his sisters had torn
it, not knowing what it was.
Given under my hand, this 2$th Nov. 1830.
SAM. HENDERSON.
[Note. To this certificate of Doct. Henderson is annexed the
copy of the paper A, originally deposited by John M'Knitt Alex-
ander in the hands of Gen. Davie, whose name seems to have been
mistaken by Mr. Jefferson for that of Gov. Caswell. See preface,
pages v & vi. This paper is somewhat torn, but is entirely legible,
and constitutes the "solemn and positive proof of authenticity,''
which Mr. Jefferson required, and which would doubtless have been
satisfactory, had it been submitted to him.]
State Pamphlet 251
CAPTAIN JACK'S CERTIFICATE.
Having seen in the newspapers some pieces respecting
the Declaration of Independence by the people of Mecklen-
burg county, in the State of North Carolina, in May, 1775,
and being solicited to state what I know of that transaction ;
I would observe, that for some time previous to, and at
the time those resolutions were agreed upon, I resided in
the town of Charlotte, Mecklenburg county; was privy
to a number of meetings of some of the most influential
and leading characters of that county on the subject,
before the final adoption of the resolutions and at the
time they were adopted; among those who appeared to
take the lead, may be mentioned Hezekiah Alexander, who
generally acted as Chairman, John M'Knitt Alexander, as
Secretary, Abraham Alexander, Adam Alexander, Maj. John
Davidson, Maj. (afterwards) Gen. Wm. Davidson, Col. Thomas
Polk, Ezekiel Polk, Dr. Ephraim Brevard, Samuel Martin,
Duncan Ochletree, William Willson, Robert Irvin.
When the resolutions were finally agreed on, they were
publicly proclaimed from the court-house door in the town
of Charlotte, and received with every demonstration of joy
by the inhabitants.
I was then solicited to be the bearer of the proceedings to
Congress. I set out the following month, say June, and in
passing through Salisbury, the General Court was sitting
at the request of the court I handed a copy of the resolu-
tions to Col. Kennon, an Attorney, and they were read
aloud in open court. Major William Davidson, and Mr.
Avery, an attorney, called on me at my lodgings the
evening after, and observed, they had heard of but one
person, (a Mr. Beard) but approved of them.
I then proceeded on to Philadelphia, and delivered the
Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of May, 1775,
to Richard Caswell and William Hooper, the Delegates to
Congress from the State of North-Carolina.
252 Appendix of Documents
I am now in the eighty-eighth year of my age, residing in
the county of Elbert, in the State of Georgia. I was in
the Revolutionary War, from the commencement to the
close. I would further observe, that the Rev. Francis
Cummins, a Presbyterian Clergyman, of Greene county,
in this State, was a student in the town of Charlotte at
the time of the adoption of the resolutions, and is as well,
or perhaps better acquainted with the proceedings at that
time, than any man now living.
Col. William Polk, of Raleigh, in North-Carolina, was
living with his father Thomas, in Charlotte, at the time I
have been speaking of, and although then too young to be
forward in the business, yet the leading circumstances I
have related cannot have escaped his recollection.
JAMES JACK.
Signed this 7th Dec. 1819, in presence of
JOB WESTON, C. C. O.
JAMES OLIVER, Atto. at Law.
G 2
NORTH CAROLINA, )
Cabarrus County, Nov. 29, 1830. j
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that we have
frequently heard William S. Alexander, dec'd, say that he,
the said Win. S. Alexander, was at Philadelphia, on mer-
cantile business, in the early part of the summer of 1775,
say in June; and that on the day that Gen. Washington
left Philadelphia to take the command of the Northern
army, he, the said Wm. S. Alexander, met with Capt.
James Jack, who informed him, the said William S. Alex-
ander, that he, the said James Jack, was there as the agent
or bearer of the Declaration of Independence made in
Charlotte, on the twentieth day of May, seventeen hundred
and seventy-five, by the citizens of Mecklenburg, then
including Cabarrus, with instructions to present the same
to the Delegates from North Carolina, and by them to be
State Pamphlet 253
laid before Congress, and which he said he had done; in
which Declaration the aforesaid citizens of Mecklenburg
renounced their allegiance to the crown of Great Britain,
and set up a government for themselves, under the title of
The Committee of Safety.
Given under our hands the date above written.
ALPHONSO ALEXANDER,
AMOS ALEXANDER,
J. M'KNITT.
D
Lexington, (Georgia,) November 16, 1819.
DEAR SIR, The bearer, the Hon. Thomas W. Cobb, has
suggested to me that you had a desire to know something
particularly of the proceedings of the citizens of Mecklen-
burg county, in North-Carolina, about the beginning of
our Revolutionary War.
Previous to my becoming more particular, I will suppose
you remember the Regulation business, which took its rise
in or before the year 1770, and issued and ended in a battle
between the Regulators and Governor Tryon, in the spring
of 1 7 7 1 . Some of the Regulators were killed, and the whole
dispersed. The Regulators' conduct "was a rudis indiges-
taque moles" as Ovid says, about the beginning of creation;
but the embryotic principles of the Revolution were in
their temper and views. They wanted strength, consistency,
a Congress and a Washington at their head. Tryon sent
his officers and minions through the State, and imposed
the oath of allegiance upon the people, even as far up as
Mecklenburg county. In the year 1775, after our Revo-
lution began, the principal characters of Mecklenburg
county met on two sundry days, in Queen's Museum in
Charlotte, to digest Articles for a State Constitution, in
anticipation that the Province would proceed to do so.
In this business the leading characters were, the Rev.
254 Appendix of Documents
Hezekiah James Balch, a graduate of Princeton College,
an elegant scholar, Waightstill A very, Esq. Attorney at
Law; Hezekiah and John M'Knitt Alexander, Esqrs. Col.
Thomas Polk, &c. &c.
Many men, and young men, (myself one) before magis-
trates, abjured allegiance to George III, or any other
foreign power. At length, in the same year, 1775, I think
at least positively before July 4th, 1776, the males gener-
ally of that county, met on a certain day in Charlotte, and
from the head of the court-house stairs proclaimed Inde-
pendence on English Government, by their herald Col.
Thomas Polk. I was present, and saw and heard it, and
as a young man, and then a student in Queen's Museum,
was an agent in these things. I did not then take and keep
the dates, and cannot, as to date, be so particular as I
could wish. Capt. James Jack, then of Charlotte, but now
of Elbert county, in Georgia, was sent with the account of
these proceedings to Congress, then in Philadelphia and
brought back to the county, the thanks of Congress for
their zeal and the advice of Congress to be a little more
patient, until Congress should take the measures thought
to be best.
I would suppose, sir, that some minutes of these things
must be found among the records of the first Congress, that
would perfectly settle their dates. I am perfectly sure
being present at the whole of them, they were before our
National Declaration of Independence.
Hon. Sir, if the above few things can afford you any
gratification, it will add to the happiness of your friend and
humble servant.
FRANCIS CUMMINS.
HON. NATHANIEL MACON.
E
Vesuvius Furnace, 4th October, 1830.
DEAR SIR, Agreeably to your request, I will give you
State Pamphlet 255
the details of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence
on the 2oth of May, 1775, as well as I can recollect after a
lapse of fifty-five years. I was then a lad about half grown,
was present on that occasion (a looker on.)
During the Winter and Spring preceding that event,
several popular meetings of the people were held in Char-
lotte; two of which I attended. Papers were read, griev-
ances stated, and public measures discussed. As printing
was not then common in the South, the papers were mostly
manuscript ; one or more of which was from the pen of the
Reverend Doctor Reese, (then of Mecklenburg,) which met
with general approbation, and copies of it circulated. It
is to be regretted that those and other papers published at
that period, and the journal of their proceedings, are lost.
They would show much of the spirit and tone of thinking
which prepared them for the measures they afterwards
adopted.
On the 2oth of May, 1775, besides the two persons
elected from each militia company, (usually called Com-
mittee-men,) a much larger number of citizens attended
in Charlotte than at any former meeting perhaps half
the men in the county. The news of the battle of Lexing-
ton, the 1 9th of April preceding, had arrived. There
appeared among the people much excitement. The
committee were organized in the court house by ap-
pointing Abraham Alexander, Esq. Chairman, and
John M'Knitt Alexander, Esq. Clerk or Secretary to the
meeting.
After reading a number of papers as usual, and much
animated discussion, the question was taken, and they
resolved to declare themselves independent. One among
other reasons offered, that the King or Ministry had, by
proclamation or some edict, declared the Colonies out of
the protection of the British Crown; they ought, therefore,
to declare themselves out of his protection, and resolve
on independence. That their proceedings might be in due
form, a sub-committee, consisting of Doctor Ephraim
256 Appendix of Documents
Brevard, a Mr. Kennon, an attorney, and a third person,
whom I do not recollect, were appointed to draft their
Declaration. They retired from the court house for some
time; but the committee continued in session in it. One
circumstance occurred I distinctly remember: A member
of the committee, who had said but little before, addressed
the Chairman as follows: " If you resolve on independence,
how shall we all be absolved from the obligations of the
oath we took to be true to King George the 3d about four
years ago, after the Regulation battle, when we were sworn
whole militia companies together. I should be glad to
know how gentlemen can clear their consciences after taking
that oath." This speech produced confusion. The Chair-
man could scarcely preserve order, so many wished to
reply. There appeared great indignation and contempt at
the speech of the member. Some said it was nonsense;
others that allegiance and protection were reciprocal ; when
protection was withdrawn, allegiance ceased; that the
oath was only binding while the King protected us in the
enjoyment of our rights and liberties as they existed at the
time it was taken; which he had not done, but now de-
clared us out of his protection ; therefore was not binding.
Any man who would interpret it otherwise, was a fool.
By way of illustration, (pointing to a green tree near the
court house,) stated, if he was sworn to do any thing as
long as the leaves continued on that tree, it was so long
binding; but when the leaves fell, he was discharged from
its obligation. This was said to be certainly applicable
in the present case. Out of respect for a worthy citizen,
long since deceased, and his respectable connexions, I
forbear to mention names; for, though he was a friend to
the cause, a suspicion rested on him in the public mind
for some time after.
The sub-committee appointed to draft the resolutions
returned, and Doctor Ephraim Brevard read their report,
as near as I can recollect, in the very words we have since
seen them several times in print. It was unanimously
State Pamphlet 257
adopted, and shortly after it was moved and seconded to
have proclamation made and the people collected, that
the proceedings be read at the court house door, in order
that all might hear them. It was done, and they were
received with enthusiasm. It was then proposed by some
one aloud to give three cheers and throw up their hats.
It was immediately adopted, and the hats thrown. Several
of them lit on the court house roof. The owners had some
difficulty to reclaim them.
The foregoing is all from personal knowledge. I under-
stood afterwards that Captain James Jack, then of Char-
lotte, undertook, on the request of the committee, to carry
a copy of their proceedings to Congress, which then sat
in Philadelphia; and on his way, at Salisbury, the time of
court, Mr. Kennon, who was one of the committee who
assisted in drawing the Declaration, prevailed on Captain
Jack to get his papers, and have them read publicly ; which
was done, and the proceedings met with general approba-
tion. But two of the Lawyers, John Dunn and a Mr. Booth,
dissented, and asserted they were treasonable, and en-
deavored to have Captain Jack detained. He drew his
pistols, and threatened to kill the first man who would
interrupt him, and passed on. The news of this reached
Charlotte in a short time after, and the executive of the
committee, whom they had invested with suitable powers,
ordered a party of ten or twelve armed horsemen to bring
said Lawyers from Salisbury; when they were brought,
and the case investigated before the committee. Dunn, on
giving security and making fair promises, was permitted
to return, and Booth was sentenced to go to Camden, in
South Carolina, out of the sphere of his influence. My
brother George Graham and the late Col. John Carruth
were of the party that went to Salisbury; and it is dis-
tinctly remembered that when in Charlotte they came home
at night, in order to provide for their trip to Camden; and
that they and two others of the party took Booth to that
place. This was the first military expedition from Meck-
;'
.:
258 Appendix of Documents
lenbttrg in the Revolutionary war, and believed to be the
first any where to the South.
Yours respectfully.
J. GRAHAM.
DR. Jos. M'KT. ALEXANDER.
Mecklenburg, N. Carolina.
EXTRACT PROM THE MEMOIR OP THE LATE REV. HUMPHREY
HUNTER.
Orders were presently issued by Col. Thos. Polk to the
several militia companies, that two men, selected from each
corps, should meet at the Court-House on the i9th of May,
1 7 7 5 , in order to consult with each other upon such measures
as might be thought best to be pursued. Accordingly, on
said day a far larger number than two out of each company
were present. There was some difficulty in choosing the
commissioners. To have chosen all thought to be worthy,
would have rendered the meeting too numerous. The
following were selected, and styled Delegates, and are here
given, according to my best recollection, as they were
placed on roll: Abram Alexander, sen'r, Thomas Polk,
Rich'd Harris, sen'r, Adam Alexander, Richard Barry,
John M'Knit Alexander, Neil Morison, Hezekiah Alexander,
Hezekiah J. Balch, Zacheus Wilson, John Phifer, James
Harris, William Kennon, John Ford, Henry Downs, Ezra
Alexander, William Graham, John Queary, Chas. Alex-
ander, Waitstill Avery, Ephraim Brevard, Benjamin
Patton, Matthew M'Clure, Robert Irwin, John Flenniken,
and David Reese.
Abram Alexander was nominated, and unanimously
voted to the Chair. John M'Knit Alexander and Ephraim
Brevard were chosen Secretaries. The Chair being occu-
pied, and the Clerks seated, the House was called to order
and proceeded to business. Then a full, a free, and dis-
State Pamphlet 259
passionate discussion obtained on the various subjects for
which the delegation had been convened, and the following
resolutions were unanimously ordained :
i st. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly
abetted, or in any way, form or manner, countenanced the
unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as
claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this country, to
America, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.
2d. Resolved, That we, the citizens of Mecklenburg
county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have
connected us to the mother country, and hereby absolve
ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown, and
abjure all political connection, contract, or association,
with that nation, who have wantonly trampled on our
rights and liberties, and inhumanly shed the blood of Amer-
ican patriots at Lexington.
3d. Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a
free and independent people; are, and of right ought to
be, a sovereign and self-governing Association, under the
control of no power other than that of our God and the
general government of the Congress; to the maintenance
of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other
our mutual co-operation, our lives, our fortunes, and our
most sacred honor.
4th. Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the exist-
ence and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military,
within this county, we do hereby ordain and adopt as a
rule of life, all, each and every of our former laws,
wherein, nevertheless, the crown of Great Britain never
can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities
or authority therein.
$th. Resolved, That it is further decreed, that all, each
and every military officer in this county, is hereby rein-
stated in his former command and authority, he acting
conformably to these regulations. And that every member
present, of this delegation, shall henceforth be a civil
officer, viz. a Justice of the Peace, in the character of a
260 Appendix of Documents
"Committee-man," to issue process, hear and determine
all matters of controversy, according to said adopted laws,
and to preserve peace, union and harmony in said county;
and to use every exertion to spread the love of country and
fire of freedom throughout America, until a more general
and organized government be established in this province.
Those resolves having been concurred in, bye-laws and
regulations for the government of a standing Committee
of Public Safety were enacted and acknowledged. Then a
select committee was appointed, to report on the ensuing
day a full and definite statement of grievances, together
with a more correct and formal draft of the Declaration of
Independence. The proceedings having been thus arranged
and somewhat in readiness for promulgation, the Dele-
gation then adjourned until to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.
The 2oth of May, at 12 o'clock, the Delegation, as above,
had convened. The select committee were also present,
and reported agreeably to instructions, viz. a statement
of grievances and formal draft of the Declaration of
Independence, written by Ephraim Brevard, chairman of
said committee, and read by him to the Delegation. The
resolves, bye-laws and regulations were read by John
M'Knitt Alexander. It was then announced from the
Chair, are you all agreed? There was not a dissenting
voice. Finally, the whole proceedings were read distinctly
and audibly, at the Court- House door, by Col. Thomas
Polk, to a large, respectable and approving assemblage
of citizens, who were present, and gave sanction to the
business of the day. A copy of all those transactions were
then drawn off, and given in charge to Capt. James Jack,
then of Charlotte, that he should present them to Congress,
then in session in Philadelphia.
On that memorable day, I was 20 years and 14 days of
age, a very deeply interested spectator, recollecting the
dire hand of oppression that had driven me from my native
clime, now pursuing me in this happy asylum, and seeking
to bind again in the fetters of bondage.
State Pamphlet 261
On the return of Capt. Jack, he reported that Congress,
individually, manifested their entire approbation of the
conduct of the Mecklenburg citizens; but deemed it pre-
mature to lay them officially before the House.
NOTE. The foregoing extract is copied from a manuscript
account of the Revolutionary War in the South, addressed by the
writer to a friend, who had requested historical information upon
this subject. Mr. Hunter was in the battle of Camden, and has
given an interesting narrative of the circumstances connected with
the death of Baron De Kalb. The manuscript gives the biography
of the writer, from which it appears he was a native of Ireland, and
born on the i4th of May, 1755, and at an early age emigrated from
his native land to the Province of North Carolina.
ADDITIONAL PAPERS,
NOT PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO IN THE PREFACE.
FROM THE RALEIGH REGISTER, OF FEBRUARY l8, 1820.
MECKLENBURG DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE.
When this Declaration was first published in April last, some doubts
were expressed in the Eastern papers as to its authenticity,
(none of the Histories of the Revolution having noticed the cir-
cumstance.) Col. William Polk, of this City, (who, though a mere
youth at the time, was present at the meeting which made the
Declaration, and whose Father being Colonel of the county,
appears to have acted a conspicuous part on the occasion,)
observing this, assured us of the correctness of the facts generally,
though he thought there were errors as to the name of the Secre-
tary, &c., and said that he should probably be able to correct
these, and throw some further light on the subject, by enquiries
amongst some of his old friends in Mecklenburg county. He
has accordingly made enquiries, and communicated to us the
following Documents as the result, which, we presume, will do
away all doubts on the subject.
CERTIFICATE.
STATE OF NORTH-CAROLINA,
MECKLENBURG COUNTY.
At the request of Col. William Polk, of Raleigh, made to
262 Appendix of Documen
Major-General George Graham, soliciting him to procure
all the information that could be obtained at this late
period, of the transactions which took place in the county
of Mecklenburg, in the year 1775, as it respected the people
of that county having declared Independence ; of the time
when the Declaration was made; who were the principal
movers and leaders, and the members who composed the
body of Patriots who made the Declaration, and signed
the same.
We, the undersigned citizens of the said county, and of
the several ages set forth opposite to each of our names, do
certify, and on our honor declare, that we were present in
the town of Charlotte, in the said county of Mecklenburg,
on the i Qth day of May, 1775, when two persons elected
from each Captain's Company in said county, appeared as
Delegates, to take into consideration the state of the
country, and to adopt such measures as to them seemed
best, to secure their lives, liberty, and property, from the
storm which was gathering, and had burst upon their
fellow-citizens to the Eastward, by a British Army, under
the authority of the British King and Parliament.
The order for the election of Delegates was given by Col.
Thomas Polk, the commanding officer of the militia of the
county, with a request that their powers should be ample,
touching any measure that should be proposed.
We do further certify and declare, that to the best of our
recollection and belief, the delegation was complete from
every company, and that the meeting took place in the
Court-House, about 12 o'clock on the said igth day of
May, 1775, when Abraham Alexander was chosen Chairman,
and Dr. Ephraim Brevard Secretary. That the Delegates
continued in session until in the night of that day; that
on the 2oth they again met, when a committee, under the
direction of the Delegates, had formed several resolves,
which were read, and which went to declare themselves,
and the people of Mecklenburg county, Free and Inde-
pendent of the King and Parliament of Great Britain
State Pamphlet 263
and that, from that day henceforth, all allegiance and po-
litical relation was absolved between the good people of
Mecklenburg, and the King of Great Britain; which Decla-
ration was signed by every member of the Delegation,
under the shouts and huzzas of a very large assembly of
the people of the county, who had come to know the issue
of the meeting. We further believe, that the Declaration
of Independence was drawn up by the Secretary, Dr.
Ephraim Brevard, and that it was conceived and brought
about through the instrumentality and popularity of Col.
Thomas Polk, Abraham Alexander, John M'Knitt Alexan-
der, Adam Alexander, Ephraim Brevard, John Phifer, and
Hezekiah Alexander, with some others.
We do further certify and declare, that in a few days
after the Delegates adjourned, Captain James Jack, of the
town of Charlotte, was engaged to carry the resolves to the
President of Congress, and to our Representatives one
copy for each; and that his expenses were paid by a
voluntary subscription. And we do know that Captain
Jack executed the trust, and returned with answers, both
from the President and our Delegates in Congress, expres-
sive of their entire approbation of the course that had been
adopted, recommending a continuance in the same; and
that the time would soon be, when the whole Continent
would follow our example.
We further certify and declare, that the measures which
were adopted at the time before mentioned, had a general
influence on the people of this county to unite them in
the cause of liberty and the country, at that time ; that the
same unanimity and patriotism continued unimpaired to
the close of the war; and that the resolutions had con-
siderable effect in harmonising the people in two or three
adjoining counties.
That a committee of Safety for the county were elected,
who were clothed with civil and military power, and under
their authoiity several disaffected persons in Rowan, and
Tryon (now Lincoln county), were sent for, examined,
264 Appendix of Documents
and conveyed (after it was satisfactorily proven they were
inimical) to Camden, in South Carolina, for safe-keeping.
We do further certify, that the acts passed by the com-
mittee of Safety, were received as the Civil Law of the
land in many cases, and that Courts of Justice for the
decision of controversies between the people were held,
and we have no recollection that dissatisfaction existed
in any instance with regard to the judgments of said courts.
We are not, at this late period, able to give the names of
all the Delegation who formed the Declaration of Inde-
pendence; but can safely declare as to the following per-
sons being of the number, viz. Thomas Polk, Abraham
Alexander, John M'Knitt Alexander, Adam Alexander,
Ephraim Brevard, John Phifer, Hezekiah James Balsh,
Benjamin Patton, Hezekiah Alexander, Richard Barry,
William Graham, Matthew M'Clure, Robert Irwin, Zachias
Wilson, Neil Morrison, John Flenniken, John Queary,
Ezra Alexander.
In testimony of all and every part herein set forth, we
have hereunto set our hands.
GEO. GRAHAM, aged 61, near 62.
WM. HUTCHINSON 68.
JONAS CLARK 61.
ROBT ROBINSON, 68.
PROM JOHN SIMESON TO COL. WILLIAM POLK.
"Providence, January 20, 1820.
"Dear Sir, After considerable delay, occasioned partly
to obtain what information I could, in addition to my own
knowledge of the facts in relation to our Declaration of
Independence, and partly by a precarious, feeble old age,
I now write to you in answer to yours of the 24th ult.
"I have conversed with many of my old friends and
others, and all agree in the point, but few can state the
particulars; for although our county is renowned for
general intelligence, we have still some that don't read
State Pamphlet 265
the public prints. You know, in the language of the day,
every Province had its Congress, and Mecklenburg had its
county Congress, as legally chosen as any other, and
assumed an attitude until then without a precedent; but,
alas! those worthies who conceived and executed that
bold measure, are no more; and one reason why so little
new light can be thrown on an old truth, may be this
and I appeal to yourself for the correctness of the remark
we who are now called Revolutionary men, were then
thoughtless, precipitate youths; we cared not who con-
ceived the bold act, our business was to adopt and support
it. Yourself, sir, in your eighteenth year and on the spot,
your worthy father, the most popular and influential
character in the county, and yet you cannot state much
from recollection. Your father, as commanding officer of
the county, issued orders to the Captains to appoint two
men from each company to represent them in the commit-
tee. It was done. Neill Morrison, John Flenniken, from
this company; Charles Alexander, John M'Knitt Alexan-
der, Hezekiah Alexander, Abraham Alexander, Esq. John
Phifer, David Reese, Adam Alexander, Dickey Barry, John
Queary, with others, whose names I cannot obtain. As to
the names of those who drew up the Declaration, I am in-
clined to think Doctor Brevard was the principal, from
his known talents in composition. It was, however, in
substance and form, like that great national act agreed
on thirteen months after. Ours was towards the close of
May, 1775. In addition to what I have said, the same
committee appointed three men to secure all the military
stores for the county's use Thomas Polk, John Phifer,
and Joseph Kennedy. I was under arms near the head of
the line, near Col. Polk, and heard him distinctly read a
long string of Grievances, the Declaration and Military
Order above. I likewise heard Col. Polk have two warm
disputes with two men of the county, who said the measures
were rash and unnecessary. He was applauded and they
silenced. I was then in my 22d year, an enemy to usur-
266 Appendix of Documents
pation and tyranny of every kind, with a retentive memory,
and fond of liberty, that had a doubt arisen in my mind
that the act would be controverted, proof would not have
been wanting; but I comfort myself that none but the
self-important peace-party and blue-lights of the East,
will have the assurance to oppose it any further. The
biographer of Patrick Henry (Mr. Wirt) says he first sug-
gested Independence in the Virginia Convention; but it is
known they did not reduce it to action so that it will pass
for nothing. The Courts likewise acted independently. I
myself heard a dispute take place on the bench, and an
acting magistrate was actually taken and sent to prison
by an order of the Chairman.
"Thus, sir, have I thrown together all that I can at this
time. I am too blind to write fair, and too old to write
much sense but if my deposition before the Supreme
Court of the United States would add more weight to a
truth so well known here, it should be at the service of my
fellow-citizens of the county and State generally.
"I am, sir, your friend and humble servant,
"JOHN SIMESON, Sen.
P. S. I will give you a short anecdote. An aged man
near me, on being asked if he knew any thing of this affair,
replied, "Och, aye, TAM POLK declared Independence lang
before anybody else." This old man is 81.
CERTIFICATE OF ISAAC ALEXANDER.
I hereby certify that I was present in Charlotte on the
ipth and 2oth days of May, 1775, when a regular depu-
tation from all the Captains' companies of militia in the
county of Mecklenburg, to wit: Col. Thomas Polk, Adam
Alexander, Lieut. Col. Abram Alexander, John M'Knitt
Alexander, Hezekiah Alexander, Ephraim Brevard and a
number of others, who met to consult and take measures
for the peace and tranquillity of the citizens of said county,
State Pamphlet 267
and who appointed Abraham Alexander their Chairman,
and Doctor Ephraim Brevard Secretary; who, after due
consultation, declared themselves absolved from their
allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and drew up a
Declaration of their Independence, which was unanimously
adopted ; and employed Capt. James Jack to carry copies
thereof to Congress, who accordingly went. These are a
part of the transactions that took place at that time, as
far as my recollection serves me.
ISAAC ALEXANDER.
October 8, 1830.
CERTIFICATE OP SAM*L WILSON.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
MECKLENBURG COUNTY. )
I do hereby certify, that in May, 1775, a committee or
delegation from the different militia companies in this
county, met in Charlotte; and after consulting together,
they publicly declared their independence on Great Britain,
and on her Government. This was done before a large
collection of people, who highly approved of it. I was then
and there present, and heard it read from the Court House
door. Certified by me.
SAM'L WILSON.
CERTIFICATE OF JOHN DAVIDSON.
Beaver Dam, October 5, 1830.
DEAR SIR, I received your note of the 25th of last
month, requiring information relative to the Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence. As I am, perhaps, the only
person living, who was a member of that Convention, and
being far advanced in years, and not having my mind fre-
quently directed to that circumstance for some years, I
can give you but a very succinct history of that transaction.
There were two men chosen from each Captain's company,
268 Appendix of Documents
to meet in Charlotte, to take the subject into consideration.
John M'Knitt Alexander and myself were chosen from one
company; and many other members were there that I
now recollect, whose names I deem unnecessary to mention.
When the members met, and were perfectly organized for
business, a motion was made to declare ourselves inde-
pendent of the Crown of Great Britain, which was carried
by a large majority. Dr. Ephraim Brevard was then ap-
pointed to give us a sketch of the Declaration of Independ-
ence, which he did. James Jack was appointed to take it
on to the American Congress, then sitting in Philadelphia,
with particular instructions to deliver it to the North
Carolina Delegation in Congress, (Hooper and Caswell.)
When Jack returned, he stated that the Declaration was
presented to Congress, and the reply was, that they highly
esteemed the patriotism of the citizens of Mecklenburg;
but they thought the measure too premature.
I am confident that the Declaration of Independence by
the people of Mecklenburg was made public at least twelve
months before that of the Congress of the United States.
I do certify that the foregoing statement, relative to
the Mecklenburg Independence, is correct, and which I
am willing to be qualified to, should it be required.
Yours respectfully,
JOHN DAVIDSON.
Doct. J. M. ALEXANDER.
NOTE. The following is a copy of an original paper furnished by
the writer of the foregoing certificate, from which it would seem,
that from the period of the Mecklenburg Declaration, every indi-
vidual friendly to the American cause was furnished by the Chair-
man of that meeting, ABRAM ALEXANDER, with testimonials of the
character he had assumed; and in this point of view the paper
affords strong collateral testimony of the correctness of many of
the foregoing certificates.
NORTH CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, )
November 28, 1775. f
These may certify to all whom they may concern, that the bearer
State Pamphlet 269
hereof, William Henderson, is allowed here to be a true friend to
liberty, and signed the Association.
Certified by ABR'M ALEXANDER, Chairman
of the Committee of P. S.
LETTER FROM J. G. M. RAMSEY.
Mecklenburg, T. Oct. i, 1830.
DEAR SIR, Yours of 2ist ultimo was duly received. In
answer I have only to say, that little is in my possession
on the subject alluded to which you have not already seen.
Subjoined are the certificates of two gentlemen of this
county, whose respectability and veracity are attested
by their acquaintances here, as well as by the accompany-
ing testimonials of the magistrates in whose neighborhood
they reside. With this you will also receive extracts from
letters on the same subject from gentlemen well known to
you, and to the country at large.
I am, very respectfully, yours, &c.
J. G. M. RAMSEY.
CERTIFICATE OF JAMES JOHNSON.
I, James Johnson, now of Knox county, Tennessee, but
formerly of Mecklenburg county, North Carolina, do here-
by certify, that to the best of my recollection, in the
month of May, 1775, there were several meetings in Char-
lotte concerning the impending war. Being young, I was
not called on to take an active part in the same; but
one thing I do positively remember, that she (Mecklen-
burg county) did meet and hold a Convention, declared
independence, and sent a man to Philadelphia with the
proceedings. And I do further certify, that I am well ac-
quainted with several of the men who formed or constituted
said Convention, viz. John M'Knitt Alexander, Hezekiah
2;o Appendix of Documents
Alexander, Abraham Alexander, Adam Alexander, Robert
Irwin, Neill Morrison, John Flenniken, John Queary.
Certified by me this nth day of October, 1827.
JAMES JOHNSON.
In my seventy-third year.
CERTIFICATE OP ELIJAH JOHNSON AND JAMES WILHITE.
We, Elijah Johnson and James Wilhite, acting Justices
of the Peace for the county of Knox, do certify, that we
have been a long time well acquainted with Samuel Mont-
gomery and James Johnson, both residents of Knox county;
and that they are entitled to full credit, and any statement
they may make to implicit confidence.
Given under our hands and seals this 4th day of October
1830.
ELIJAH JOHNSON, (Seal.)
JAMES WILHITE, (Seal.)
Justices of the Peace for Knox county.
NOTE. Mr. Montgomery's certificate does not purport to state
the facts as having come under his own personal observation It
is therefore omitted in this publication.
c.
THE MECKLENBURG RESOLVES AS PRINTED IN THE
NORTH-CAROLINA GAZETTE OF JUNE 16, 1775, No. 323.'
Charlotte Town, Mecklenburg County, May 31.
This Day the COMMITTEE met, and passed the following
RESOLVES:
WHEREAS by an Address presented to his Majesty
by both Houses of Parliament in February last, the Amer-
ican Colonies are declared to be in a State of actual Re-
bellion, \ve conceive that all Laws and Commissions con-
firmed by, or derived from the Authority of the King or
Parliament, are annulled and vacated, and the former
civil Constitution of these Colonies for the present wholly
suspended. To provide in some Degree for the Exigencies
of the County in the present alarming Period, we deem
it proper and necessary to pass the following RESOLVES, viz.
1. That all Commissions, civil and military, heretofore
granted by the Crown, to be exercised in these Colonies,
are null and void, and the Constitution of each particular
Colony wholly suspended.
2. That the Provincial Congress of each Province,
under the Direction of the Great Continental Congress,
is invested with all legislative and executive Powers
within their respective Provinces; and that no other
Legislative or Executive does or can exist, at this Time,
in any of these Colonies.
3. As all former Laws are now suspended in this Pro-
vince, and the Congress have not yet provided others, we
1 From a photograph of the original newspaper.
271
272 Appendix of Documents
judge it necessary, for the better Preservation of good
Order, to form certain Rules and Regulations for the
internal Government of this County, until Laws shall be
provided for us by the Congress.
4. That the Inhabitants of this County do meet on a
certain Day appointed by this Committee, and having
formed themselves into nine Companies, to wit, eight for
the County, and one for the Town of Charlotte, do choose
a Colonel, and other military Officers, who shall hold and
exercise their several Powers by Virtue of this Choice,
and independent of Great-Britain, and former Constitution
of this Province.
5. That for the better Preservation of the Peace, and
Administration of Justice, each of these Companies do
choose from their own Body two discreet Freeholders,
who shall be impowered each by himself, and singly, to
decide and determine all Matters of Controversy arising
within the said Company under the Sum of Twenty Shillings,
and jointly and together all Controversies under the Sum
of Forty Shillings, yet so as their Decisions may admit of
Appeals to the Convention of the Select Men of the whole
County; and also, that any one of these shall have Power
to examine, and commit to Confinement, Persons accused
of Petit Larceny.
6. That those two Select Men, thus chosen, do, jointly
and together, choose from the Body of their particular
Company two Persons, properly qualified to serve as
Constables, who may assist them in the Execution of their
Office.
7. That upon the Complaint of any Person to either of
these Select Men, he do issue his Warrant, directed to the
Constable, commanding him to bring the Aggressor before
him or them to answer the said Complaint.
8. That these eighteen Select Men, thus appointed,
do meet every third Tuesday in January, April, July,
and October, at the Court-House in Charlotte, to hear and
determine all Matters of Controversy for Sums exceeding
North Carolina Gazette Resolves 27:3 |*r
4tt.tt*gvta<
Forty Shillings; also Appeals: And in Cases of Felony,
to commit the Person or Persons convicted thereof to
close Confinement, until the Provincial Congress shall
provide and establish Laws and Modes of Proceeding in
such Cases.
9. That these Eighteen Select Men, thus convened, do
choose a Clerk to record the Transactions of the said
Convention ; and that the said Clerk, upon the Application
of any Person or Persons aggrieved, do issue his Warrant
to one of the Constables, to summons and warn the said
Offender to appear before the Convention at their next
sitting, to answer the aforesaid Complaint.
10. That any Person making Complaint upon Oath to
the Clerk, or any Member of the Convention, that he has
Reason to suspect that any Person or Persons indebted to
him in a Sum above Forty Shillings, do intend clandestinely
to withdraw from the County without paying such Debt;
the Clerk, or such Member, shall issue his Warrant to the
Constable, commanding him to take the said Person or
Persons into safe Custody, until the next sitting of the
Convention.
1 1 . That when a Debtor for a Sum below Forty Shillings
shall abscond and leave the County, the Warrant granted
as aforesaid shall extend to any Goods or Chattels of the
said Debtor as may be found, and such Goods or Chattels
be seized and held in Custody by the Constable for the
Space of Thirty Days; in which Term if the Debtor fails
to return and discharge the Debt, the Constable shall
return the Warrant to one of the Select Men of the Company
where the Goods and Chattels were found, who shall issue
Orders to the Constable to sell such a Part of the said
Goods as shall amount to the Sum due; that when the
Debt exceeds Forty Shillings, the Return shall be made
to the Convention, who shall issue the Orders for Sale.
12. That Receivers and Collectors for Quitrents, Public
and County Taxes, do pay the same into the Hands of the
Chairman of this Committee, to be by them disbursed as>
274 Appendix of Documents
the public Exigencies may require. And that such Re-
ceivers and Collectors proceed no farther in their Office
until they be approved of by, and have given to this Com-
mittee good and sufficient Security for a faithful Return
of such Monies when collected.
13. That the Committee be accountable to the County
for the Application of all Monies received from such Officers.
14. That all these Officers hold their Commissions
during the Pleasure of their respective Constituents.
15. That this Committee will sustain all Damages that
may ever hereafter accrue to all or any of these Officers
thus appointed, and thus acting, on Account of their
Obedience and Conformity to these Resolves.
1 6. That whatever Person shall hereafter receive a
Commission from the Crown, or attempt to exercise any
such Commission heretofore received, shall be deemed
an Enemy to his Country; and upon Information being
made to the Captain of the Company where he resides
the said Captain shall cause him to be apprehended, and
conveyed before the two Select Men of the said Company,
who, upon Proof of the Fact, shall commit him the said
Offender into safe Custody, until the next sitting of the
Convention, who shall deal with him as Prudence may
direct.
17. That any Person refusing to yield Obedience to the
above Resolves shall be deemed equally criminal, and
liable to the same Punishments as the Offenders above
last mentioned.
1 8. That these Resolves be in 'all Force and Virtue,
until Instructions from the Geneial Congress of this
Province, regulating the Jurisprudence of this Province,
shall provide otherwise, or the Legislative Body of Great-
Britain resign its unjust and arbitrary Pretensions with
Respect to America.
19. That the several Militia Companies in this county
do provide themselves with proper Arms and Accoutre-
ments, and hold themselves in constant Readiness to
North Carolina Gazette Resolves 275
execute the commands and Directions of the Provincial
Congress, and of this committee.
20. That this committee do appoint Colonel Thomas
Polk, and Doctor Joseph Kennedy, to purchase 300 Ib. of
Powder, 600 Ib. of Lead, and 1000 Flints; and deposit
the same in some safe Place, hereafter to be appointed by
the committee.
Signed by Order of the Committee.
EPH. BREVARD, Clerk of the Committee.
The North-Carolina Gazette of June 16, 1775,
from which the foregoing resolves are copied, was
recently found by Mr. Edward P. Moses, of Raleigh,
in the library of Hayes, the residence of Samuel
Johnston, the Revolutionary statesman, near
Edenton, N. C. Mr. Moses found with it a letter
of Richard Cogdell, chairman of the Craven county
Committee, dated New Bern, June 18, 1775. The
newspaper was undoubtedly enclosed in this
letter, which bears internal evidence of having
been addressed to Richard Caswell, at Philadel-
phia. Cogdell writes that the Craven Committee
has put into execution measures similar to those
recommended by Caswell. " We have Transmited
the Copy of Our proceedings," he says, ''to every
County & Town in the Province, and have had
the pleasure to hear many Counties have adopted
the Same. Our County of Craven have had their
private musters and Ellected their Officers. . . .
you'l Observe the Mecklinburg Resolves, exceeds
all other Committees, or the Congress itself. I
Send you the paper, wherein they are inserted as
I hope this will come Soon to hand."
D.
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MECKLENBURG RESOLVES IN THE
CAPE-FEAR MERCURY OF JUNE 23, 1775, SENT IN
GOVERNOR MARTIN'S DUPLICATE LETTER OF JUNE
30, 1775, TO LORD DARTMOUTH.*
North Carolina Charlotte Town Mecklenburgh County
This day the Committee of ys County met and passed
the following resolves. Whereas by an address presented
to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament in February
last, the Americans are declared Rebels, We conceive that
all the laws and Commissions Conferred by or derived from
the authority of the King or Parliament are Annulled and
void, and the former Constitution of the Colonies for the
present wholly Suspended To provide in some degree
for the exigencies of this County in this Alarming Situation,
We deem it proper and Necessary to pass the following
Resolves.
Resolved
I st That all Commissions Civil and Military heretofore
granted by the Crown to be exercised in this Colony to be
Null and Void, and the Constitution of each particular
Colony wholly Suspended
2 d That the provincial Congress of each province under
the direction of the Great Continental Congress is invested
with all the legislative and Executive Authority with their
respective provinces, and that no legislative or Executive
power does or can Exist at this time in any of their Colonies.
3? As all former laws are now Suspended in this Province
1 From the original manuscript in the possession of the Earl of
Dartmouth.
276
Cape Fear Mercury Resolves 277
and the Congress have not yet provided others, we judge
it necessary for the better preservation of good order to
perform good rules & Regulations for the internal Govern-
ment of this County untill laws shall be provided for us
by the Congress.
4 th That the Inhabitants of this County do meet on a
certain day appointed by the Committee, and having
formed themselves into 9 Companies, Viz. 8 in the County
and i in the Town of Charlotte do chuse a Colonel & other
Malitia officers, who shall hold and Exercise their Several
Powers by virtue of this Choice and independant of the
Crown of Great Britain and the former Constitution of this
Province.
5 th That for the better preservation of the Peace and
Administration of Justice, Each of their Companies do
Chuse from their own body two discreet Freeholders who
shall be empowered each by himself and singly to decide
and determine all Matters of Controversy, arising within
the Said Company under the Sum of Twenty Shillings
and jointly all Controversies under 40, yet so as their
Decision may admit of an appeal to the Convention of
the Select Men of the whole County, and also that any one
of these men have power to Examine & Commit to Con-
finement persons accused of Petty Larceny.
6 th That these two Select Men thus chosen do jointly and
together chuse from the Body of their particular Company
two persons properly qualified to act as Constables who
may assist them in the Execution of their office.
7 th That upon the Complaint to either of these Select
Men do issue their Warrant directed to the Constable to
bring the Aggressor before him or them to answer the Said
Complaint.
8 th That these Eighteen Select Men thus Appointed
do meet every third Tuesday in Jan ry , April, July and
October at the Court House in Charlotte Town to hear
and determine all Matters of Controversies for Sums ex-
ceeding 40 shillings also Appeals, and in case of Felony
278 Appendix of Documents
to commit their Person or persons to close Confinement
untill the Provincial Congress shall provide and Constitute
Laws and mode of proceedings in such Cases.
9 1 ? That these eighteen Select Men thus Convened do
chuse a Clerk to record the transactions of the said Con-
ventions, and that the Clerk upon the Application of any
Person or Persons aggrieved do issue their Warrant to
one of the Constables to summon and warn the said
Offender to appear before the said Convention at their
next meeting to answer the aforesaid Complaint.
lo* That any person making Complaint upon oath
to the Clerk or any member of the Convention that he has
reason to Suspect that any Person or Persons indebted
to him in a Sum above 40 shillings do intend Clandestinely
to withdraw from the County without paying such Debt,
the Clerk or such Member shall issue his Warrant to the
Constable commanding him to take the said Person or
Persons into safe Custody untill the next Sitting of the
Convention.
n* That when a Debtor in a Sum under 40^ shall abscond
and leave the County, the Warrant granted as aforesaid
shall extend to any Goods or Chatties of the said Debtor
as may be found, and if such Goods or Chatties so seized
and held in Custody for the Space of 30 days in which time
the Debtor fail to return and discharge the debt, the Con-
stable shall return the Warrant to any of the said Select
Men of the Company where the goods or Chatties are found
who shall issue orders to the Constable to sell such a Part
of the said Goods as shall amount to the Sum due, that
when the Debt shall exceed 40 sh the return shall be made
to the Convention who shall issue their Order for Sale
12* That all Receivers and Collectors of Quitrents,
Publick & County Taxes do pay the Same into the hand
of the Chairman of this County to be by them dispersed
as the Publick Exigencies may require, and that such
Receivers and Collectors proceed no farther in their office
untill they be approved off by, and have given to their
Cape-Fear Mercury Resolves 279
Committee good and sufficient Security for a faithful
return of such Money when Collected.
13 th That the Committee shall be accountable to the
County for the Application of all money received by such
publick officers.
I4 1 . 11 That all those officers shall hold their Commissions
during the Pleasure of their respective Constituents.
i^ That this Committee shall satisfy all Demands that
ever hereafter may accrue to all or any of these their
Officers thus Appointed and thus Acting on account of
their Obedience in Conformity to these Resolves.
1 6 th . That whatever Person shall hereafter receive a Com-
mission from the Crown or Attempt to exercise such
Commission heretofore received shall be deemed an Enemy
to his Country, and upon information being made to the
Captain of the Company in which he resides, the said
Captain shall cause him to be apprehended and Convey
him before the two Select Men of the s? Company who
upon the proof of the Fact shall commit him the said
Offender to safe Custody, 'till the next meeting of the
Convention who shall deal with him as they in their
Prudence direct.
1 7^ That any person refusing to yeild Obedience to the
above Resolves shall be considered as equal Enemies and
liable to the same punishment as the Offenders above last
mentioned.
1 8 th That these Resolves shall be in full force and Virtue
untill Instructions from the Continental Congress, regu-
lating the just proceedings of this province shall provide
otherwise or the legislative body of Great Britain resign
it's unjust & arbitrary pretentions with respect to America
and no longer.
i9 t . h That the several Malitia Company in this County
do provide themselves with proper Arms and Accoutre-
ments and hold themselves in constant readiness to
execute the command and advice of the General Congress
of this Province & of this Committee.
28o Appendix of Documents
20 th That the Committee Appoint Colonel Tho? Polk &
DT Joseph Kennedy to purchase 3oo lbs of Gun Powder &
6oo lbs of Lead & 1000 flints for the use of the Malitia in
this County and deposite the Same in some safe place
hereafter to be appointed by the Committee to be cautiously
kept untill the safety & defence of their Colony shall
require use to make use of it in defence of our Country
and Liberty.
Signed by order of the Committee
Ephraim Brevard
E.
COLONEL WILLIAM FOLK'S ACCOUNT OF FIRST REVO-
LUTIONARY MOVEMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA.
The first revolutionary movements in this State as far
as recollection serves, were almost simultaneous throughout
the same; yet there were sections in which the zeal for
the common cause & opposition to the right of G Britain
to impose taxes upon the Colonies & regulate the internal
policy thereof, had taken deeper root and was nourished
by the popular leaders, so as to take a lead in the measures
to be adopted. It was in the Sea Port towns the proposition
for a convention began, under the influence of Harnett,
Howe, Hooper, the Moores & Ashes at Wilmington; Nash,
Coor, Leech & Cogdell at Newbern, S. Johnston, Hughes,
Harvey & others at Edenton, aided in the interior by
Caswell, Blount, W ! : Hill, Willie & Allen Jones, Williams,
Person, Penn, Bourke, Hart, Kinchen, Martin, Souther-
land, Rutherford, Locke, Sharpe, Polk, Phifer, Alexanders,
Spencer, Wade, Rowan, Owen, Kenon, Dicksons & others.
The Convention met on the 27** of August 1774 at Newbern,
and appointed John Harvey their President; the Speaker
of the House of Assembly under the Colonial Gov- it was
at this Convention; three Delegates were elected to meet
at Philadelphia a general Congress from all the States
William Hooper, Joseph Hughes & R? Caswell were
elected, and served for one year; when John Penn at a
Convention held at Hillsb- Aug' 1775 was elected in the
place of R? Caswell, appointed Treasurer of the Southern
District.
281
282 Appendix of Documents
It was not untill about the meeting of the Delegates in
Aug* 1775 the idea of self government had been entertained
but by a few of the leading characters at this Session there
was two Regiments of Infantry ordered to be raised on the
Continental establishment three Regiments of Minute
men ; a Committee of safety ; and the members who should
compose it regulations for the administration of Justice
under the authority of the State Congress appointment
of Militia Officers in the several Counties means for pur-
chasing powder lead, & making of salt petre. At this
Session a Test was required of each Member; professing
allegiance to the King and the constitutional power of the
Gov* ; but declaring at same time most solemnly & abso-
lutely that neither the Parliment, nor any constitutent
branch thereof have a Right to impose taxes; and that all
attempts by fraud or force to exercise such powers are
violations & ought to be resisted to the utmost: and fur-
ther that the People singly & collectively are bound by
the Acts of the Continental & Provincal Congresses; be-
cause they are freely represented there by persons of their
own choice they further solemnly & sincerly promise &
engage, under the sanction of Virtue, Honour, & sacred
Love of liberty & Country ; to maintain and support all &
every act resolution & regulation of the said Congresses.
To this test the Members present subscribed, to the number
of 181; of which number there are only 7 now living viz.
Thomas Henderson of Rockenham, Jos. Williams of Surry,
Ransome Southerland of Wake, Waightstill Avery of
Burke, James Houston of Iredell & Tho- Gray & James
Glasgow now of Tennessee. [Here appear the account of the
Mecklenburg Declaration and text of the resolutions which are
reproduced in pages 184-193 of this volume.] Such was the
fame & energetic conduct of Thomas Polk & John Phifer two
of the most popular men in the County, that the Council of
safety from a knowledge of the enthusiastic spirit of the
People & the opposition which they had & were still making
against British encroachments on their liberty & of the
William Folk's Narrative 283
influence these two characters had, did on the 3? of March
1776 commission them to raise a Reg* of 750 men on the
Cont- 1 establishment. At the time Lord Cornwallis followed
his victory over Gates & marched to Charlotte, there was
not a Continental soldier nigher than Hillsb? the People
of Mecklenburg, & particularly those in the Town & its
immediate vicinity sent of their Wives & families & after
having accompanyed them a few miles; returned & joined
their several captains commands & hung night & day on the
enemies lines. Their foraging parties were never permitted
to return to Camp without being fired on from every favour-
able situation all intercourse between Charlotte & Cam-
den, the British Military Deposit in the middle grounds of
S? Carolina, was completely shut up & put a stop to their
Picquets were fired on & harrassed every night & in fine
there was no communication between the enemes Posts,
nor could his Lordship ascertain what force was collecting
against him in this situation he remained n days & on
the night of the 12^ he left the place preciptately, leaving
behind him more than 50 Waggons & much Plunder;
retracing his steps to within the British lines whilst the
Militia were hanging on his rear & flanks in times, 20. &
50 An officer of the British Army in writing to his corre-
spondent in England, gives an account of the privations
to which the Army were subjected to in Charlotte, N. C. &
calls it the Hornetts Nest.
E.
COLONEL WILLIAM FOLK'S ACCOUNT OF FIRST REVO-
LUTIONARY MOVEMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA.
The Resolutions of the Mecklenburg Delegates, is taken
from a manuscript copy given by Doctor Jos. McKnitt
Alexander of Mecklenburg I cannot vouch for their
being in the words of the Committee who framed them;
but they are essentially so.
284 Appendix of Documents
I had intended to have given you the names of these
Patriots who formed the Delegation & who passed the
Resolutions, but I have not been fortunate enough to
obtain the whole of them At the time this meeting took
place & for years before & after my Father Thomas Polk
was the most popular man in the County, had represented
it many years under the Colonial system & was one of
the first Delegates from the County to the Provincial
Congress & it was almost altogether attributal to him, the
course that was taken by the people of that County the
effects of which reached & was felt in the Counties of
Rowan, Iredell & Lincoln
The following are some of the names alluded to
Thomas Polk
Abraham Alexander
Jn? McKnitt Alexander
Ephraim Brevard
Rev? Hezekiah James Balch
Adam Alexander
John Phifer
James Harris
John Query
Zacheus Wilson Sen?
Waightstill Avery
W Kennon
John Ford
Benj? Patton.
When on my way thro' Mecklenburg I may procure
the bal. if so you shall hear from me W P
[Indorsed by Col. Polk:
" First revolutionary
movements & C."
Indorsed by Judge Murphey:
"74-75
published"]
I
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
E
215
.9
H86
1907
C.I
ROBA
TVNews
OpenLibrary